2006-11-03

Government Orders
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  moved that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Crowfoot.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9 but it is definitely with mixed feelings as the bill has currently been amended. 
We have to remember that the government and not only the party in government but also the opposition parties were elected. If we all remember the last election, we were elected with a message and a mandate from the people of Canada. Every party, the NDP and the Liberals, ran on a platform to get tough on crime. Therefore, when all members who were elected were back in the ridings, they were able to tell their constituents that we want to get tougher on crime.
The problem is, after the election, when the dust had settled down and it came time to take the measures, to take the steps, that would actually protect society, that would actually have an impact on making our streets safer, and that would have an impact on making our communities safer, only one party seems to be willing to move forward with those tough steps.
I had the privilege last night of attending a fundraiser for victims services in Toronto. In conversation with many of the people who are involved with victims services, one of the things that we find is that it is the victim that is all too often the forgotten member in society. Very quickly, thoughts turn to the offender, to the system, to the process and in all of that, unfortunately, too often it is the victim who is left behind. It is the victim left holding the bag.
The approach that the government chose to fulfill its commitment to eliminate conditional sentences for serious crimes was simple and it was straightforward. Bill C-9, as it was introduced by the government, was aimed at eliminating conditional sentences for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment. 
When I speak to my constituents in Fundy Royal, in the Saint John area and in Moncton, New Brunswick, and across the country, and when I speak to everyday Canadians, I listen to their stories and I hear their comments. They tell us that they do not want repeat serious offenders serving their sentences back in the community where they committed the offence.
I will speak specifically to violent offences, sexual offences, and very serious property crimes where people have been repeatedly victimized. They catch the individuals that were the perpetrators of these crimes. Finally, they get him or her before a court, expecting justice to be served. What do they find out? These individuals are going to serve sentences right in front of their own TVs in the comforts of their own homes on their sofas. That is not justice.
Our bill targeted offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more when prosecuted by indictment. This would have not only targeted offences in the Criminal Code, but also offences contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act punishable by 10 years or more.
We never claimed that our bill was perfect. There is no perfect bill, but it was a good bill. It was a bill that captured the most serious offences. The Minister of Justice , when he appeared before committee, said to the opposition that he was open to reasonable amendments to the bill. If the opposition members had some better idea than they could bring it forward. If they had an idea that would help eliminate conditional sentences for serious crimes and ensure consistency and certainty in sentencing, they could bring that forward as well.
However, the minister also pointed out that several of the property crimes were made ineligible by Bill C-9. When the House listens to this list there is probably no one listening, whether in the House or in our country, who does not know of someone who has been victimized by one of these crimes or perhaps has been victimized themselves. 
There was theft over $5,000, and that includes serious auto theft which has been a problem in both our urban and rural areas. Identity theft, break and enter, these are serious offences. Arson, robbery, again very serious offences. Such offences should not be eligible for conditional sentence. They should not be eligible for house arrest and any amendments that did so would not be considered reasonable amendments by this government.
Obviously and unfortunately, the opposition parties did not agree. They preferred to spring an amendment in committee that essentially gutted the bill by limiting the restrictions to the availability of conditional sentences to “serious personal injury offences” as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code, terrorism offences and criminal organization offences. There are several serious problems with the approach put forward by the opposition.
Serious personal injury offences are defined in the dangerous offender part of the Criminal Code. The definition is designed for dangerous and long term offenders that are often referred to as the worst of the worst, not for offenders receiving a sentence of less than two years which is the maximum sentence for a conditional sentence.
We are talking about two completely different types of offenders. The serious personal injury category of offences, while that may sound appropriate when we look at the interpretation the courts have applied and we look at the code, is clearly not appropriate for this bill. It covers indictable offences punishable by 10 years or more and involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person or involving conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe, psychological damage upon another person.
The problem with relying on this definition as the opposition seems to want to do is that Canadians clearly do not believe that these offences should attract conditional sentence. The problem is the level of violence or endangerment must be objectively serious for an offence to constitute a serious personal injury offence. In addition, the commission of a serious personal injury offence, as defined, involves a degree of intent. 
Under Bill C-9, as amended by the opposition working together the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, this will work against making our streets and our communities safe from dangerous individuals, arsonists, people who steal cars, and people who rob elderly senior citizens. The way that the opposition has amended the bill every case would have to be argued by counsel and determined by the judge, based on all the circumstances, as to whether it can fit within the four corners of the serious personal injury offence definition. Obviously, this leaves no certainty in the law as to whether a long list of offences, some of which I have already itemized, are eligible for a conditional sentence or not.
As the Minister of Justice mentioned at report stage of Bill C-9, the Alberta Court of Appeal in Regina v. Neve concluded that robbery, for example, did not in that case constitute a personal injury offence. I should point out that robbery is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life potentially. In other words, the amendment proposed by the opposition parties would still allow conditional sentences in cases where they were not meant to be applied. That is for serious crimes, some of which are punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years or life.
We have to remember, and I was not here at the time, but some members in the House were when conditional sentencing was introduced, that we were assured that house arrest was not going to be used for serious crimes. It was sold to Canadians as something that would only be used in so-called minor cases. Yet, we see in cases involving crimes against children, involving recidivism, involving repeat offenders dealing with car thefts, thefts over $5,000, robbery, and arson, that individuals are getting conditional sentences. 
This government has said enough is enough. We have listened to Canadians and we have said we will not allow individuals who repeatedly victimize their communities to serve their time in their own homes and the opposition parties are unified and working against us.
The amendment made to Bill C-9 by the opposition ignores the concerns of Canadians who want to see serious crime receive real punishment. They want to see consistency in sentencing, but above all they want themselves and their families to be safe. This will not be achieved by Bill C-9 as amended. I wish to oppose the amendments put forward by the opposition.
 I call on all members of this House to work together to provide security for our communities.
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the member opposite. He surely knows, and members of his party know, that the Conservative Party by no means has a monopoly on the desire to make Canada's streets and communities as safe as possible. There is no monopoly on that side of the House.
On this side of the House, as the Liberal Party, we feel very strongly that streets have to be as safe as possible. That is why 13 years of Liberal government have resulted in Canada still being recognized as one of the safest countries in the world.
Because often members opposite will talk about certain examples, I would like to ask the member directly, with respect to auto theft, for instance, if an 18 year old, hypothetically of course, succumbs to peer pressure and joins with two or three buddies, perhaps to some extent under the influence of alcohol, and they decide in concert to steal an automobile for an evening, should that 18 year old automatically go to jail, as is proposed by the member? That seems to me a rather unimaginative solution to a problem.
I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on that specific hypothetical.
[Interjection]
Rob Moore: First, Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the premise of the member's preamble that all parties take crime seriously. I think the last 13 years of Liberal government that the member refers to have been absolutely atrocious when it comes to justice, when it comes to balance in our justice system, and when it comes to protecting communities and society, and I could go on in regard to arson, car theft, break and enter. Canadians, my constituents in Fundy Royal, and I think probably the member's own constituents, if he were to ask them, are fed up with these individuals receiving conditional sentences.
The member has to be reminded that in all cases, even currently, the crown prosecutor has the ability to proceed by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction. Under our bill, if a crown prosecutor elected to proceed by summary conviction in some cases that were less serious, a conditional sentence is still available. 
It is only in the more serious cases, where the prosecutor proceeds by way of indictment, that we are saying we have to end this revolving door justice system that allows serious offenders, including those who repeatedly steal cars, to get those sentences. I do not know if the member does not think that is a serious problem, but it is a serious problem, and maybe he should ask--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We have others who want to ask questions. The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, having sat on the justice committee for the biggest part of the last 13 years, I will tell members that during the election campaign when I proposed these very measures to the public during campaign speeches, what surprised me was that the Liberal candidate and the NDP candidate in every case supported everything I said. They agreed with everything I proposed, in line with what we are trying to do will Bill C-9. We did not have a Bloc candidate there but I am sure he or she would have objected. 
What did not surprise me is that when I got back to the committee, after being there for 13 years, suddenly there was a change. Obviously there was some real soft peddling on how to deal with crime and these issues. They were not believing what they said during the election campaign. That became very obvious. Especially after they made their amendments, it was totally obvious.
I did not expect anything different from the Bloc members, because they have always been soft on crime, but I did expect the Liberals and the NDP to maintain that attitude to support the public, which was calling out loud and clear, “Do something about the crime element. Get rid of house arrest for serious crimes”.
Did the member not hear the same message that I heard during the campaign? Why would he suppose that sudden soft peddling from the Liberals and the NDP took place in the committee during the debate?
[Interjection]
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Wild Rose and also the hon. member for Crowfoot, who is going to speak next, for consistently calling for safer communities and for being tireless advocates on behalf of victims, specifically children. I commend them both for their hard work on this file.
They know that over the past 13 years the Liberals and NDP liked to talk the talk but only one party is walking the walk when it comes to getting tough on crime. It is not good enough for them to say one thing to their constituents when they are back home or at debates and then do another when we are in the House of Commons and it comes time to protect communities.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-9. I note that over the number of years I have been in the House and serving on the justice committee, we brought forward bills like this as private members' bills. That happened a number of times. There were four or five private members' bills dealing with conditional sentences and dangerous offenders.
There were many different bills that came forward, bills that the people of Crowfoot, Alberta and Canada asked for, and then we watched as the government of the day slammed the door on legislation. That would basically tell Canadians that the responsibility for governments and for our law, for the justice system, was not to protect society.
That is what bills such as this are here to do.
My constituents have always brought forward their concerns over the release of violent offenders back into society. My efforts were to do something about the Liberal Party's neglect and its reckless treatment of conditional sentences, but yet again doors were slammed.
The frustration was felt not just by members of Parliament. The frustration was felt not just by the Conservative Party of Canada. The frustration was felt by victims. Time after time, calls and letters came in from people who had been victimized. They were not always from the primary victim, not always from the one who had been assaulted, not always from the one who had an offence committed against them. Sometimes the families of those victims felt that they personally had been victimized. They felt it especially when, a number of days after the trial, they would meet the individual who had committed the offence against them and see the individual released onto the streets of our communities.
I applaud the justice minister and the government for keeping their commitments and bringing forward the priorities they said they would and for making it clear that criminal justice system changes and changes to bills would take place. We are seeing that happen.
This morning I want to talk about a number of cases that we could perhaps learn from. Let us take a look at some of the past decisions, decisions that might have been an encouragement for this government to make the changes it is trying to implement here.
In one case from 2001, R. v. Bratzer, the offender committed three armed robberies in a period of a week. For those three armed robberies, he sat down, calculated what he was going to do, picked up the weapon of choice and decided to carry out these criminal offences. He went out and did it.
 In reaching the sentence, the court considered as aggravating factors the fact that the accused had committed a series of planned robberies, that the offender had calculated, that he was masked at the time of the robbery, and that the offender admitted to the rush the robberies had given him, the sense of gratification, excitement and enthusiasm as he carried them out.
 The court also mentioned the fact that the offender had no remorse. He placed the mask over his head. He picked up the weapon of choice. He knew that he was going to get a feeling of excitement and enthusiasm and he went out and committed the offences. The court looked at the circumstances and sentenced the accused to house arrest, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day.
Canadians are concerned when we watch our young men and women and those in society who say that they get a rush from perpetrating criminal offences and victimizing Canadians.
Another example of the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing can be found in the case of R. v. Bunn. In this case, the accused, a lawyer, was retained by a Russian lawyer to recover and remit inheritances of money, an estate, from six deceased Manitoba and Saskatchewan residents. In all cases, he converted part of the trust money received from each of the beneficiaries from his trust account to his general account. In other words, he was absconding with the money. Approximately $86,000 was converted through 145 separate transfers or transactions after he had already taken 10% as fees for his services.
At times I have dealt with lawyers and have thought their fees were astronomical on certain occasions, but in this case, after he received 10%, he then went back in and was able through fraud and other ways to abscond with $86,000 from the accounts. The accused was disbarred. He was convicted of six counts of breach of trust. He was sentenced to two years' incarceration.
After trial, but prior to the appeal, Bill C-41 and the conditional sentencing regime came into force. The Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal of the sentence and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, it is interesting to learn what Justice Bastarache said in the dissenting opinion:
 It is well established that the focus of the sanction for criminal breach of trust is denunciation and general deterrence...In the past this has required that, absent exceptional circumstances, lawyers convicted of criminal breach of trust have been sentenced to jail...This emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence is, for a number of reasons, particularly important when courts punish lawyers who have committed criminal breach of trust. First, the criminal dishonesty of lawyers has profound effects on the public's ability to conduct business that affect people far beyond the victims of the particular crime...Second, as officers of the court, lawyers are entrusted with heightened duties, the breach of which brings the administration of justice into disrepute.... 
Judge Bastarache was right. Judge Bastarache realized in his dissenting opinion that what the courts were going to do was minimize one of the fundamental institutions that every democracy depends on, and that is the institution of rule of law and a criminal justice system. Confidence that those who would stand in such a place to represent an individual should not be, on the same hand, victimizing that same individual.
This last example shows that since their creation conditional sentences have been applied in cases where they were not intended by Parliament to be applied and where they certainly should not apply. That is why I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for bringing out in his speech the fact that when we stand in these halls and in this House and talk about the intent of law, the courts and the justices say, “Is this what Parliament meant?” We need to be very clear so that the justice system and the court system recognize that when this was put in place we did not intend much of what the courts are allowing to happen now.
Bill C-9 originally intended to restore confidence and permitted this use in appropriate cases only. However, as amended, Bill C-9 does not offer any guarantee that conditional sentences will not be given in serious cases of violent crime, property crime and drug crime. The bottom line is that the Liberal amendment to Bill C-9, supported by the Bloc and the NDP, does not answer the concern of Canadians. It does not make their homes safer. It do not make their streets safer. It will not restore confidence in the conditional sentence sanction or the administration of justice generally.
If Bill C-9 passes in its present form, this House will have missed an extremely important opportunity to do its duty to ensure greater respect for the law on the part of ordinary Canadians and to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are a million children living in poverty in Canada. These children are growing up unable to benefit from the services that would help them become responsible and productive citizens. As we all know, poverty is one of the main underlying causes of crime. 
According to my colleague, would it not be better to ensure that the provinces have the money they need to fight poverty, rather than having to build more prisons to lock up many people who would have never turned to crime if they had been given even a bit of a chance? 
[Interjection]
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, a lot of different conditions lead to crime. Parliament has to lay down the structure of what is acceptable in society and what is not. We have to be guided by certain principles. The protection of society is the responsibility of our criminal justice system. When drafting this type of law, politicians need to be aware of the fact that the protection of our society is very important. 
My colleague is right. There are many conditions that lead to criminal activity. Where appropriate, governments must step in and be aware of the factors that could lead to crime. Governments must get involved. 
Bill C-9 does not deal with all of the background. Those are areas at which governments have to look. Bill C-9 indicates what would happen when individuals put themselves in that position. Are we going to go back and start diluting everything that has been done here? Are we going to allow people to be victimized because an individual was brought up without all the things that perhaps would have allowed him or her to contribute to society? Although we have to look at departments, social services and other things, and the government is, there needs to be balance when someone crosses the line. There has to be a system in place that says this is unacceptable. 
There have been cases where criminals walk through the prison doors back out on to the streets before the victims are out of the hospital. That is not acceptable. Bill C-9 would provide incarceration for some of these offences. 
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member on the amendments. I think they are positive. I do not really think taking one case and talking about in the House of Commons is that helpful. Over the last 10 years, on a Canada-wide basis, crime rates with respect to property crime, violent crime, youth crime and homicides have decreased.
 As a member of the justice committee, what is his view on the reasons for this? A number of reasons could perhaps be advanced such as demographics, or maybe we are doing a better job at getting at the cause of crime or maybe the judicial system is doing a better job. There must be some reasons being advanced in research as to why our crime rate is decreasing.
I agree with the hon. member that we have to toughen up the legislation with respect to conditional sentencing, which is about 10 years old. It does need to be reviewed.
[Interjection]
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, when I go to my constituency, I meet with seniors. I ask them if they feel safer today on the streets than they did 15 or 20 years ago. The answer is no. I also have asked them if they feel safer today when they go into the mall or when they park in an underground parkade and then make their way into the mall. Every one of them says no.
They recognize that gang and drug crimes are up as are many other criminal activities and they do not feel safer. In fact, most of them say they do not feel safer in their very own homes today. The question specifically comes from a premise that crime is down. Violent crime, gang crime, drug crime and gun crime are up.
One of the things I am also very much troubled about is property crime. More and more people are saying that the police do not have the resources or the time to investigate. They are saying that they are not even going to report those crimes.
In fact, when we look at some of the sexual assaults, even more troubling than property crime not being reported, many young men and young women are saying that they are not going to go through the system to even report because the government turns a blind eye to the offender--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry but the time has long since expired.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlottetown.
[Interjection]
Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this very important topic today. 
This issue involves the whole role of conditional sentencing. As everyone is aware, this issue was changed in 1996 and adopted. I believe over the last 10 years it has probably served us well, and that is borne out through some international comparisons. However, I believe the original intent of Parliament is at present not being lived up to, that there are situations where very serious crimes have been committed and the criminals have been given conditional sentences. It is about time that Parliament reviewed the legislation and made changes so this does not happen in the future.
Specifically, I am talking about some of the sexual crimes involving young people and the violent crimes. In the past, the conditional sentencing provisions have been used by our judiciary in allowing conditional sentencing, which I, as a member of Parliament, do not think is appropriate. I believe it is time to amend those certain provisions in the Criminal Code.
I have listened to a lot of debate on this issue. I should point out that in my previous life I practised law with a large firm in eastern Canada for about 25 years. During my career, especially in the early parts of my career, I did a lot of part time prosecuting and I did a lot of defence work. I would have represented hundreds and hundreds of individuals charged with the crimes I prosecuted. After going through those life experiences, there are no two cases the same. Every case brings its own unique set of facts. 
We are talking about an individual accused, the age of the accused, the victim, the crime, the circumstances surrounding the crime and the record of the accused, but no two cases are the same.
 There is no cookie cutter approach. Every time a judge is faced with a sentencing process, he has to look at all the factors involved. The principles are well enunciated in the cases. He has to look at deterrence of the offence or retribution to society, protection of the public, rehabilitation of the offender and perhaps, more important, the proportionality. At the end of the day, the sentence has to fit the crime. 
I do not think it is that helpful on the floor of the House of Commons to talk about this case or that case. No two cases are the same. In certain cases maybe the judge, or the appeal court or the Supreme Court of Canada made a mistake. For every case that someone cites as an example, where perhaps a person should not have received a conditional sentence, I can cite 10 other cases where, if the bill existed before the amendment were passed, persons were sent to jail but they should not have been, which is a travesty of justice.
As I said in my opening remarks, the legislation needs review by Parliament. The previous government introduced legislation to make certain changes and I supported them. It is time for a change after 10 years. Again, the conditional sentence is a very important tool for judges in sentencing. I believe in about 5% of the cases the judges in fact use a conditional discharge. A lot of times the accused serves his sentence in the community, and terms and conditions are invoked. I believe in about 15% of the cases there is a breach of the terms, mostly involving the use of alcohol or drugs, and the accused is then sent to jail. 
Those provisions came about through amendments to the Criminal Code in 1995 or 1996. It is time for members of the House to review them, ask themselves whether they are working and decide whether amendments are required. 
As one member of Parliament, I support amendments to tighten up the code because, as some of the speakers have pointed out, there have been situations, especially sexual crimes, sexual crimes involving youth and more violent crimes, where the accused has received a conditional sentence, which, in my view, is not appropriate for the circumstances of the offence. There may be factors out there regarding the sentence that support that principle but when one looks at it from a societal point of view, one just cannot have that going on. I agree that headlines, like “Accused convicted of molesting a four year old girl gets house arrest”, are inappropriate, which is why these provisions are before the House now.
The intent of the legislation, which I think has been followed, although there have been exceptions, is that less serious offences involving property and some physical assaults, this would be a tool for judges in the appropriate circumstances to allow the judge to have the accused person upon conviction serve the sentence in his or her home. This has been borne out by the statistics, by international research and by a lot of the positions from the provinces, although I think most provinces agree that the pendulum has swung too far and that we need to move it back, but most of them, if not all, do agree that conditional sentences are an effective tool for judges to use and ought to be continued.
The original Bill C-9 as drafted includes about 90 Criminal Code offences, anything above a maximum term of 10 years. I believe it went too far and the amendments presently before the House are an effective compromise that tighten up the legislation but, at the same time, allows judges the leeway and discretion they should have in sentencing certain offenders.
As I indicated in my previous question, statistics can be twisted around but the statistics now show, and I invite people to do their own research on this issue, that crime rates are dropping across Canada. However, that is not to suggest that crime is not a very serious issue. It is a very serious issue and the House must take it very seriously.
In some of the discussions today, people have been using examples. One example was whether a person who arrives in the middle of the night and burns someone's house down should receive a conditional sentence? The answer is absolutely not. The person should be thrown in jail and the key should be thrown away. 
For every example there is another example. If an 18-year-old, first year university student, who has never had any interaction with the criminal courts or the judicial system in his life, gets involved with the wrong crew on a certain night and steals a car, should a conditional sentence be a tool available to the judge if he or she sees it appropriate in the circumstances? 
The point is that each case is unique and each case is different and it is not helpful to take situations out of context and say that this or that should not have happened. I believe it is our job as legislators to set the parameters for the judges so they can do their jobs and have the tools available to follow the principles that they should be following and that each individual accused upon conviction is sentenced in the appropriate manner.
 I reiterate that a conditional sentence must be an option in most offences but certainly not all, as Bill C-9, as amended, indicates. 
The discussion today is very much related to the overall discussion that we are having with a number of justice bills before Parliament. Some of them were introduced by the previous government. Some appeared to me that they would become law but they did not. They died on the order paper. The new government has reintroduced them with some amendments. I believe all parties agree that five or six of them should come into law immediately, and I hope they do.
This bill is one that members of Parliament think should be amended. The justice committee has tabled and passed certain amendments. Those amendments have passed and now they are coming before the House of Commons for a vote.
I want to make another point in this debate. We are in a minority government. I believe there are 306 of us presently in the House of Commons representing the vast majority of Canadians, other than two ridings that do not presently have representation in the House. We are here to represent all Canadians.
Bill C-9 was proposed by the government. It went to the justice committee where it was debated. Amendments were proposed, debated, deliberated and voted upon. Now it has come to the House. I support the amendments but if the majority of the members of the House do not support the amendments, that is the end of it. I will not prolong the discussion or the debate, which is the way I believe every member should approach this particular bill before the House.
I do not think it adds anything to the debate to be up screaming and saying that we are soft on crime because that is simply not the case. It is unfortunate that those allegations are being made by certain members of the House.
I think this is indicative of what is going on in the House. We are in a minority government and we need to compromise. We need to seek consensus involving a majority of 306 members. In this case, it would appear to me that from the debate I have heard and from talking to members from different parties, that a majority of the members of this House support Bill C-9, as amended.
 I do hope that when this bill comes to a vote that it passes and becomes law so that the changes can be made to the existing conditional sentence regime so it can be tightened up and serve society in a much better way. 
 I again want to state that I support the amended Bill C-9 and I urge all members of the House to support it also.
Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remind the member that over the past 10 years that conditional sentencing has been in place, I and many other members of Parliament have had growing concerns about it.
In fact, it was in March 1998, over eight and a half years ago, that I first brought forward a motion to exclude certain crimes from a judge's discretion in the application of conditional sentencing, basically house arrest. A year later, I took it a step further when I introduced a private member's bill that clearly listed what crimes should be ineligible for conditional sentencing, house arrest. I and many Canadians across the land could see how this system was being abused. When the Liberals brought it forward it was supposed to be for minor property crimes in an attempt to turn some wayward youth who had maybe committed the crime of some graffiti or of shoplifting. However, it was very rapidly abused by the courts and the judges that the hon. member would like to give such great discretion to.
Conditional sentencing was being used for so-called property crimes but it was also being use for crimes of arson, which is what the hon. member mentioned. We just saw in the news a few days ago where an arsonist in California set fires that took the lives of five firefighters. That is a pretty serious crime. If he is found guilty, he will be dealt with severely because arson is a very serious crime in the state of California.
With the amendments that are being proposed to Bill C-9, the Liberals are still soft on crime despite the claims to the contrary from the member. I would remind him that when I put forward private members' legislation to restrict the use of conditional sentencing, his government, which was in power for the last almost 13 years, did nothing to restrict conditional sentencing. It was only with the election of the Conservative government last January that now we are finally seeing this issue addressed.
[Interjection]
Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to detect a question there but I will make a few comments.
Jay Hill:  You mentioned arson.
Shawn Murphy:  Yes, I will mention arson.
The member across talks about the situation in California. If that is the situation, then that would be an option available to a judge, and I would hope that the judge would not even consider a conditional sentence. However, if an 18-year-old, first year university student gets tied up with the wrong crowd and perhaps burns someone's back shed, if that is his first interaction with the judicial system, I have no problem whatsoever if a judge, after proper representation, decides in the circumstances on a conditional sentence. 
This gets into the whole debate that we are having. The members want to take individual cases. Not only could he not find one in this country, but he goes to another country to find a case. That is how ridiculous the debate has become. He talked about an arson that was committed in another country where this law would have no jurisdictional aspects, and that is unfortunate. 
The law does need tightening and Bill C-9, as amended, does that. I believe we all should support it, including the member across.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member opposite had to say on this issue and I clearly heard him say that he had very strong feelings about arsonists, that they should go to jail and that we should throw away the key. Those are pretty strong sentiments. Part of what this amendment does is eliminate the possibility of doing exactly what he is talking about.
 He also referred to an 18 year old who makes a mistake and goes on a joyride. I do not believe an 18 year old who makes his first mistake will be captured by the original legislation. What will happen with that 18 year old is, if he does this four or five times a year, then he is a habitual criminal and he needs to be dealt with strongly. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice gave a very good presentation earlier this morning but perhaps the member missed it. He made it very clear that judges would have the discretion for first time offenders, such as the joyrider, to be exempted. I would be interested to hear his comments on that.
[Interjection]
Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but the premise that she stated, and I thought I heard her correctly, that if a person is convicted of arson, this provision eliminates any possibility of that person going to jail, is not correct. That is a total misunderstanding of the Criminal Code. It is a total misunderstanding of Bill C-9. I urge the member to read not only Bill C-9 but also the Criminal Code. If there is any serious arson and the person is convicted, then I would hope that person would go to jail.
 I really cannot answer the question because it is based on a totally erroneous premise that really does not deserve any further comment from me or anyone else in this House.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member, is he aware that there are a number of people in this country being convicted of child pornography, and many of them are receiving conditional sentences?
During the years that we pleaded with the Liberal government to do something about this terrible stuff that exists out there, the only thing the Liberals came up with over the time that I have been here, started with a suggestion from a judge that there could be some artistic merit, so we have to be careful how we construct a bill dealing with child pornography. Then it came back. It did not go over so well, so then they said that there may be some public good. Of course that did not fly very far. Then they came in with more legislation, amendments to change the wording to say that there could be a useful purpose. All of these suggestions came out of a Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, if that is not soft on crime, I will eat your shirt. 
I would like to know what the dickens the member thinks being hard on crime is when we are dealing with child pornography. The suggestion we got from the Liberal government was that it was doing its very best to protect by using words like “useful purpose”, and that it could be “public good” based on “artistic merit” from some judge. 
When are we going to start getting tough on those people who are directly and indirectly attacking our children through child pornography?
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for Charlottetown, I would just caution members against drawing the Speaker's shirt into the debate.
[Interjection]
Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we hope that does not happen, not today anyway.
I believe the member's question dealt with the substance of the offence and some of the issues around convicting those accused of child pornography. I certainly agree with a lot of what he said. There has been some difficulty with interpretations from the court and it is something that has to be dealt with.
Again, I will remind the member that Bill C-9 deals with sentencing. It does not deal with the substance of the offence. As I said in my remarks, we have to tighten up the individual provisions of the conditional sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. Bill C-9 does that. I believe it will deal exactly with what the member is talking about for people convicted of sexual assault, sexual assault involving a minor, violent criminals, but at the same time it still leaves open the tool of a conditional sentence for certain property related and minor crimes. That tool will still be available to a judge in the appropriate circumstances. 
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to split her time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the amended bill. There are a number of issues that I raised in the past which I need to raise again. Despite many efforts to talk about these issues, I still do not see the kind of movement that is required. I am speaking about the adverse impact that our current criminal justice system has on aboriginal peoples, first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, as well as on other minority groups, but I am going to be speaking specifically about aboriginal peoples.
In a recent publication, the Assembly of First Nations talked about the over-representation of aboriginal peoples in the prison system. The assembly said that 2.7% of the population in Canada as of March 31 are first nations, but they represent 18.5% of all federally incarcerated prisoners in Canada. In 2000, approximately 1,792, or 41.3%, of all federally incarcerated aboriginal offenders were 25 years or younger. That is a shocking number. That is a lost generation when that many young people of aboriginal descent are in prison. In addition, women are also over-represented. The assembly found that there is an increasing trend of aboriginal women being incarcerated. This has meant an increase of approximately 74%--
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has arrived for statements by members. The member has seven minutes and 58 seconds, I believe, remaining in her time.

Statements By Members
Ontario Clean Water ActMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when a law is enacted for the benefit of all in society, it is society as a whole and not an unfortunate few who should bear the associated costs. This rule applies no matter how important the law, and it certainly applies to the worthwhile goal of source water protection as enacted last month in Ontario's clean water act.
To the extent that it is necessary under the clean water act to place restrictions on the use or enjoyment of land or property by farmers and other landowners, the associated financial losses should be fully compensated for by the provincial government with all taxpayers, in other words all beneficiaries, picking up the burden.
It is disturbing that the new law specifically states that landowners shall receive no compensation for damages. The result is that full costs of potentially devastating prohibitions on property use will be borne solely by the landowners, even when the costs were largely avoidable or had been imposed without reason or justification. 
This amounts to confiscation without compensation. It is wrong and Dalton McGuinty needs to set it right before great harm is done to thousands of rural Ontario landowners.
YouthMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the recent parliamentary break, I had the opportunity to meet a group of students from the Edmunston campus of the Université de Moncton, and to discuss Canadian democracy with them.
I also met with two groups from the Cité des Jeunes A.-M.-Sormany in Edmunston to talk about my role as a member of Parliament and the role of government.
 I can attest to the interest these young people have in Canadian politics. The questions asked by these students were surprisingly relevant, and I am convinced that such meetings should take place more frequently to stimulate the interest of young Canadians in Canadian politics.
These young students are our leaders of tomorrow. This is why I welcome every opportunity to meet with such groups in our schools and universities.
Because the future is being shaped today, it is important to provide our young people with every opportunity to learn more about the workings of our system of government and to ask any questions they may have.
Before this House here today, I would like to thank Ms. Mazouz and Mr. Nadeau and their students for inviting me into their classrooms. I hope the experience was as valuable for them as it was for me.
Municipality of RacineMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to bring to your attention the 100th anniversary of the municipality of Racine in my riding.
Racine's story began in 1906 with the arrival of the first parish priest, Father Joseph-Eugène Lemieux, and the creation of the parish registers. Racine is a rural municipality known for its spirit of cooperation: its 1,200 residents have four co-ops. Racine is a vacation destination surrounded by numerous lakes, and is also known for its social and agricultural energy.
Beginning in 2001, a celebration of local products has spread the word about the municipality's many artisans, as well as the region's cultural, agricultural and culinary heritage. This year, the celebration promises to be even more exciting because the parish's centennial reunion will be a part of it. 
I would like to wish all the residents of the municipality of Racine a joyous celebration of this milestone.
Gulu WalkMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, recently I joined my Ottawa neighbours and thousands globally in the annual Gulu Walk.
 For 40,000 children in northern Uganda, eight kilometres is the average distance between safety and horror. Every night, these children walk many kilometres seeking safety from abduction by the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA. During the decades long war, the LRA has abducted more than 30,000 children using torture and terror to warp children into child soldiers and sex slaves.
The nightly commute and the return journey to school each morning is dangerous. Many are abducted, raped or murdered along the way. To ignore the plight of these children is reprehensible.
Canada can and must use its influence in the United Nations to call for both sides in the conflict to honour the peace process. The LRA must immediately release all child soldiers and captives and the global community, with Canada leading, must accept its responsibility and ameliorate the suffering of these children whose innocence has been stolen and whose lives have been shattered.
Sri LankaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada remains concerned with the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka which has recently suffered some of the worst violence in years. We commend the parties for attending peace talks in Geneva this past weekend. We urge the parties to build on this opportunity and to commit to a further round of talks soon.
Canada calls on the LTTE to renounce terrorism and violence. It must demonstrate that it is willing to make compromises necessary for a political solution within a united Sri Lanka.
We also call on the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka to continue its efforts to resolve the current impasse and create the conditions for talks to continue. This includes addressing the credible allegations of serious human rights abuses directed against its security forces.
Canada continues to believe there can be no military solution to this lengthy conflict. We urge the parties to work toward a negotiated settlement which satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans.
Carol HarryMr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a great woman in my riding passed away from cancer recently. 
Carol Harry was a remarkable woman with an incredible heart. Born of the Squamish Nation, she was an integral part of the whole Squamish community. She carried herself with dignity and grace. 
Carol always had a wonderful smile for everyone, and was always friendly and generous with others. She could truly fill a room, enchanting everyone with her warmth. No matter what challenges she faced throughout her life, Carol always had time to help others. It is no wonder that she was so widely looked up to by the entire community.
Some truths can only be known firsthand. Carol Harry has shown us just how warm, generous and strong someone can be, no matter what the circumstances. Carol will be greatly missed.
Repentigny by electionMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the people of Repentigny, who go to the polls on November 27, deserve better than a Bloc member who only throws out ideas.
They deserve a representative who will not only promote their interests, but truly act in their interests. That is exactly what Stéphane Bourgon, the Conservative candidate in Repentigny is offering: real results in Ottawa.
A native of Repentigny, Stéphane Bourgon is committed to serving his community by giving families in Repentigny a strong voice in Canada's new government.
Stephane Bourgon will join a government that has achieved more for Quebeckers in nine months than the Bloc, forever stuck in opposition, ever has: a reduction in the GST from 7% to 6%, a monthly allowance of $100 for every child under six, a tax credit for textbook purchases—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
ImmigrationMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we hope that in the coming months, the government will turn its attention to the serious mental suffering experienced by people who, for years, must put up with the slow processing of family reunification cases, including refugees who have been given protection.
The Bloc Québécois and a number of immigrants' rights organizations are asking the government to make changes in order to expedite the process in the case of children separated from their family and to eliminate the $550 file processing fee. We have received no response to our requests.
The Conservative government may be deaf to the cries of the most vulnerable people in our society, but it needs to know that the Bloc Québécois and organizations in civil society are aware of the problem and will continue calling for changes.
We only realize the true meaning of family life when all members of the family are reunited.
Children's Fitness Tax CreditMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the children's fitness tax credit is part of the Government of Canada's commitment to maintaining the health of Canadians, specifically to address the negative impact of declining levels of physical activity among our children. 
Canada's new government is keeping its promise. An expert panel set up by the Minister of Finance has released its report to the government. During its consultations, the expert panel travelled right across Canada listening to a broad range of stakeholders. The panel found out that many of these children will benefit greatly from this new tax credit.
The children's fitness tax credit will encourage more children to be physically active and help parents with the costs of organized fitness activities. This is a good news story for all Canadian families.
RefugeesMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of people from eight moratorium countries who live in Canada for years in legal limbo. These individuals are unable to return to their home country because of insecurity there, a danger explicitly recognized by the Canadian government. They are unable to get on with their lives because they are denied permanent residence under Canada's immigration and refugee system.
The impacts for those in limbo are dramatic and painful. They cannot reunite with their family members, even spouses and children. They have limited job prospects. They cannot pursue their education. They are ineligible for federal child tax benefits, even if they work and pay the same taxes as Canadians. They have access only to emergency health coverage. They cannot travel outside Canada. They struggle with profound feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness.
Keeping hundreds of people in long term limbo is not only inhumane but clearly is also unproductive for Canadian society. These people are asking for measures to be implemented to allow them to become permanent residents. I join the Canadian Council for Refugees in supporting these communities in its efforts.
London North Centre ByelectionMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend best wishes for success to Dianne Haskett, the Conservative candidate in the London North Centre byelection. 
A native of London, Dianne has been extremely involved in the community. From 1991 to 1994 Dianne served on the London city council. During this period she helped found Open Homes Canada, a program designed to promote goodwill, understanding and national unity.
Dianne also served Londoners as the city's mayor from 1994 to 2000. As mayor, Dianne successfully initiated a strategic plan for downtown renewal. Dianne successfully attracted to London the 2001 Canada Summer Games and was the first mayor in London's history to freeze municipal taxes two years in a row.
Dianne Haskett has a record of making tough principled decisions. Like the Prime Minister and this government, Dianne Haskett will get things done for Londoners. All the best, Dianne. We will see her here.
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 40 first nations gathered at the Snuneymuxw longhouse to sign a protocol agreement. The protocol's purpose is to engage B.C. and Canada in a unified way to remove barriers and allow for the speedy conclusion of fair and viable treaties.
The protocol focuses on six issues: achieving certainty for all parties without requiring extinguishment of aboriginal rights, title and identity; finding options to meet legitimate government interests without forcing first nations to give up reserve status and constitutional land protections; including first nation vision and interests on governance in treaties; proposing options for first nations to maintain a decision making role in the co-management of lands and resources in their territories; opening up fiscal and taxation plans to create healthy and prosperous first nation communities; and developing tools for first nations to manage fish stocks, enhance habitat and support their economies from the sale of fish as they have always done.
After 14 years the time has come to objectively identify the fundamental barriers to progress on treaties and to address them collectively.
Syed Ashar WarsiHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sadly on October 5, 2006, a prominent member of our community passed away. Mr. Syed Ashar Warsi said goodbye to this world with Asma and his children Nosheen, Farheen, Zaf and Zarreen by his side.
He was an adoring husband and a devoted father. Syed was the voice for many ethnic communities, devoting countless hours to organizations which promote cultural diversity and peace.
He was a member of the board of the Asian Canadian Support Centre and CAMP Canada, an organization dedicated to young professionals. He was also committed to The Ambition newspaper, which is published by his wife Asma Warsi.
At his funeral, Syed was honoured by many friends, family members and well-known members of both the Islamic and political community. Syed was a true Canadian and an inspiration to us all. He will be dearly missed, but never forgotten.
ADISQ GalaMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, at the 28th annual gala of the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo or ADISQ, Kaïn, a group from Drummondville, was nominated in five categories.
The band, composed of Steve Veilleux, Patrick Lemieux, Éric Maheu and Yanick Blanchette, was ultimately named “group of the year” that evening. This represents important recognition for these young men, after their many years of effort and hard work. They serve as a reminder that, through dedication and perseverance, we can fulfil our ambitions. 
During the gala, Félix awards were handed out to various artists and artisans working in the music, performance and video industry. These artists are a true testament to the quality and diversity of artistic productions in Quebec.
I would like to congratulate the members of Kaïn, and all their partners, on this prestigious award. The entire Drummondville community is very proud of them. 
The EnvironmentHon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week the NDP abandoned a united stand in favour of Kyoto to score political points by introducing a bill that made no mention of Kyoto and would not commit to any reduction of greenhouse gases until 2015. 
Yesterday the government, in cooperation with the NDP, announced that its dead air act will be revived by a special committee. Yet, this bill was pronounced dead on arrival by the majority of this House upon its introduction and that majority included the NDP.
The NDP is not clearing the log jam. It is adding to it for political gain. Environmental groups like the David Suzuki Foundation have expressed concern about this dilution of the debate. 
Our position has been clear. We support Kyoto. We want a focused discussion on that issue and not a distraction from that party which has been known to use smog and mirrors to create the impression it is moving forward on climate change, when really it is slowing the discussion down.
Federal Accountability ActMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is a sad milestone. It is day 135 of the Liberal Senate's anti-democratic delay on the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history, the federal accountability act.
Canada's new government included a new section in the accountability act which would ban ministers and parliamentary secretaries from voting on or debating issues in Parliament which would put them into a conflict of interest.
What did Liberal senators do? Did they vote to preserve this important law? No. Unbelievably, they removed this section from the accountability act entirely.
Clearly, the Liberals have not learned one thing from the last election. Again, it is clear the Liberal senators are more interested in protecting the private interests of the Liberal Party rather than the public interests of Canadians.
Shame on the Liberals for standing up for conflicts of interest and against the accountability act.
Bloc QuébécoisNicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Québécois. True, we will never be the governing party. Therein lies our strength, that which gives us true power.
Therein lies the power that allows the Bloc Québécois to make choices that reflect the values and needs of the people we represent, without having to yield to powerful lobbies such as the oil and gas lobby.
Therein lies the power that gives us the daring and the ability to defend important issues such as the Kyoto protocol and the fiscal imbalance.
Therein lies the power of our private members' bills, through which we can pass important legislation, such as the anti-scab bill. Therein also lies the power to demand accountability, as we did during the sponsorship scandal.
Real power is at the source of every action taken by the Bloc Québécois. This power is what Quebeckers have been giving to us for more than 13 years, because they know that we will defend their interests with rigour, determination and, above all, integrity.

Oral Questions
Income TrustsHon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all week this government has tied itself in knots denying that it broke its promise not to impose any new taxes on income trusts. Yet that is exactly what it did. Its decision came out of nowhere and had disastrous consequences for millions of small investors in this country. 
Will the Conservative government recognize that it alone is responsible for the heavy losses taken by small investors?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, this is a regrettable, but necessary measure to stem the loss of revenue from big corporations.
Why does the Liberal Party think large corporations should not pay their fair share of taxes? Why does it want to make ordinary people, rather than large corporations, pay all the taxes?
This decision to create a tax system is fair and balanced for everyone in—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the government members must be getting the same emails we are getting from angry Canadians. Have they read them?
 Let me read one. This is from Mrs. Sinclair in Surrey, B.C. She says:
 As a single pensioner living mostly on my income trust investments I find myself now looking at the Hiring signs...of Tim Hortons...I trusted the [Prime Minister] when he...stated that “he would not touch income trusts”. 
How can the arrogant minority Conservative government turn its back on people like Mrs. Sinclair in B.C.?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let me tell members what the president of the Canadian Snowbird Association had to say, a group that represents thousands of seniors. He said, “Seniors built this country and deserve to enjoy their retirement. I'm pleased that the minister of finance has acted to allow pension income splitting. It is in the best interests of all Canadian seniors, who will be better off under the government's plan”.
The real question is, why is the Liberal Party opposed to income splitting for seniors? Will the Liberals vote against this and will they commit to Canadians, should, heaven forbid, they ever come back to government, that they will take away that multi-billion dollar tax cut for Canadian seniors, particularly those on low and modest income?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Conservative members seemed to know everything there was to know about income trusts when they were in opposition. By promising not to impose any new taxes on income trusts, they issued a direct invitation to small investors to put their savings in them.
What do they have to say today to citizens who will be forced to delay their retirement or even go back to work to make up the loss? Why did the Prime Minister throw them to the wolves?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it was her Liberal government that caused a scandal in Canada's financial markets because of recent leaks of confidential information. This was confirmed by an RCMP and Ontario Securities Commission investigation.
We have acted responsibly in making a necessary and difficult decision that will ensure that even large corporations—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Chaney from British Columbia lost over $80,000 in one day due to the Conservatives' broken promise. Mr. Chaney writes, “We need our savings just to pay for our basic living expenses. My wife has medical conditions and requires $12,000 each year for uninsured medical prescriptions”.
Today they no longer have sufficient income to pay for those basic living needs. Yesterday the government insultingly told them to just take a Valium.
Does the government have no compassion for devastated Canadians like Mr. and Mrs. Chaney?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we are always concerned when there are market fluctuations that affect people. We would encourage everybody to be responsible and patient investors. Inevitably the markets will stabilize, as they have already begun to do.
I would also point out that we are creating the macroeconomic conditions that will be helpful to all Canadians, including seniors. Today unemployment is down to 6.2%. 
The person the member cites, and all Canadian seniors, will benefit from pension splitting and from an increase in the age amount. Canadian corporations will benefit from a reduction in the general corporate rate. There has also been a dividend tax cut.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are telling parliamentarians that the Conservatives misled them just to buy their votes and then they stole their hard-earned savings.
Mr. Shaw, of Alberta, writes, “I don't expect to ever recover from my losses. I would defend this country with my life—but I never expected to be betrayed by it”.
Will the government now demonstrate accountability, admit it broke its promise and apologize to Mr. Shaw and all Canadians for the devastation it has caused?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the apology from the Liberals for having given leaks of privileged information to their millionaire friends on Bay Street last year, which resulted in very peculiar trading circumstances that profited Liberal insiders to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars with respect to income trusts.
 We are still waiting for an apology from the Liberal Party for having promised to abolish and scrap the GST. It is still here. We are cutting it because we are in favour of universal tax relief for every Canadian, including low income Canadians.
The EnvironmentMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the real purpose of the Minister of the Environment's trip to Nairobi was revealed yesterday by the Prime Minister when he stated, and I quote:
 The minister is attending this conference in order to participate in the development of an effective international protocol, which will include the major emitters of greenhouse gases. 
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, by giving these instructions to the Minister of the Environment, he is giving her the mandate of purely and simply sabotaging the Kyoto protocol?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with this statement. The Minister of the Environment takes her leadership role at the Nairobi conference very seriously.
I assure this House that we will work closely with the other countries at the Nairobi Conference to develop a realistic and effective plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I also urge the honourable member to work with us to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases in Canada by supporting our air quality bill.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the instructions he has given to the Minister of the Environment are modelled directly after George Bush's position? 
Would it not be fair to say that the real objective of the Minister of the Environment in Nairobi is to help sabotage Kyoto by getting participants to adopt the American position, which is to give more time to major polluters so they can continue to pollute as they see fit?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that statement is completely untrue. This government has proposed, for the first time in the history of Canada, an air quality bill that will give the government the authority to impose mandatory regulations concerning pollution and greenhouse gas emissions on all industrial sectors.
We hope to pass this bill with the support of the Bloc Québécois.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is working on sabotaging Kyoto, he is catering to the major oil companies by giving them accelerated capital cost allowances of up to 100% for oil sands development in Alberta, which has resulted in unprecedented development for the industry.
Does the Minister of Natural Resources recognize that with the current price of oil, this tax break is no longer necessary and that he should abolish it and use the billions of dollars thereby collected to foster the development of clean energy instead?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the next two weeks, in Nairobi at the UN climate change conference, one of the issues countries will be dealing with and discussing is how we can review the Kyoto protocol. It is an important agenda. It will include discussing what has worked and what has not. We all know the Liberal plan, which the Bloc is supporting, did not work.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the tax advantages for the oil companies turned out to be strong economic incentives when the price per barrel of oil was low. At the current price, they are no longer an incentive, they are a gift.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources understand that today the sector in need of incentives is that of renewable energies such as wind or hydroelectricity, and that he should take back his unnecessary gifts in order to promote their accelerated development?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the budget brought down in the spring and supported by the Bloc included tax incentives for the renewable energy industries.
No measure was proposed to subsidize the oil industry. On the other hand, today this industry is obviously concerned by our decision to force all major companies to pay their share of taxes in the context of income trusts. 
Government PoliciesHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's flagrant flip-flop on the income trust is just another example of the promises the Conservatives enjoy breaking, apparently, with a certain degree of celebration over there. Let us think of some other ones.
 The Conservatives said that they would never do anything but appoint elected MPs to the cabinet. They turned right around and took a Conservative bagman, put him in the Senate and put him in the cabinet, breaking a promise. They said that they would do something to clean the air, and their act makes it dirtier. Then they promised that they would do something about wait times. It was one of their top five priorities. What have they done? Absolutely nothing. There are four million Canadians on the waiting list--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. 
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question. All I can say is the government is proud of our record. 
We are proud of the fact that on our major commitments, in only nine months with substantial opposition from the other parties, we have done so much for average Canadians, from our GST tax cut to delivering on the universal child care allowance to providing for restoring accountability to government through the federal accountability act and by trying to make serious criminals do serious time through our justice reforms.
It would be nice to see that member cooperate with--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, we really have to ask ourselves, with so many broken promises, why anybody should believe anything that the Conservatives say, either in the House or in byelections in which they are running right now.
Take Repentigny, for example.
We currently have a conservatrice government that changes its mind depending on which way the wind is blowing. It says one thing during the election and does another afterward.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services was appointed to the Senate and now has the chance the run in Repentigny to be democratically elected. There was no democratic process for the Minister of—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is talking about an election in Quebec.
I want to remind the Leader of the NDP that, in the history of the Confederation, the New Democratic Party has only ever won a single seat in Quebec.
We are proud of what we are currently doing and proud of keeping our word to Quebeckers and Canadians. We will continue to do the same when it comes to justice, reducing taxes and helping families. This is a government that keeps its word.
Income TrustsHon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, emails and phone calls are flooding the offices of members of Parliament. Citizens are furious. The voters in London North Centre know that the broken promise of the Conservative Party is costing Canadians their savings. 
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House if the Conservative candidate in London North Centre is knocking on doors to apologize to Canadians for this broken promise, or like the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, does she tell them just to take a Valium?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member what that candidate will be saying, as well as all members of the government.
 We believe, unlike the Liberals, that big companies have to pay their fair share of taxes. We do not believe in big tax holidays for major corporations.
We do believe in tax fairness for seniors, which is precisely why the finance minister has announced measures to provide income splitting for pension income, to raise the age amount in the tax system and also to promote productivity by cutting the general corporate amount and the taxation on dividends.
We stand for the interests of all Canadians, not just big corporations.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, constituents in London North Centre are sending emails and calling to say that they feel betrayed. The government broke its campaign promise, wiping out their savings.
One constituent, Ken Fast, wrote, “It appears that all my work for the Conservative Party was in vain”. Then he went on to describe that party in what is, quite frankly, very unparliamentary language.
Why will the government not apologize to all Canadians, especially to voters in London North Centre, before they sell them another stack of broken promises in this byelection?
Jason Kenney: In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is a government that keeps its promises. One of our promises was to protect seniors in terms of the taxation system, which is precisely what we did by allowing pensioned seniors to split their pension income. This means a couple with a $40,000 pension income will save $2,200 in taxes under these changes.
It is true that the phone companies, the big banks and the big oil and gas companies will have to pay their fair share of taxes. That is what Canadians expect. That is what the government believes in: fairness for all.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, immediately after this government reneged on its promise to Canadians that there would be no new tax on income trusts, Michael Fortier, an unelected minister, told small investors, who were losing their shirts, to take a Valium.
Yesterday, Canadians again lost nearly $5 billion. They have now lost a total of nearly $30 billion since the beginning of this week. 
When will the Prime Minister order his Minister of Public Works and Government Services to apologize for his callous and offensive remarks?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let us be reasonable. Clearly, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was simply saying that there is no need for panic during a short period of market instability. 
And he was right. The financial markets have since stabilized and we saw a rise in the Toronto Stock Exchange yesterday. Today, very good numbers were reported with respect to unemployment rates. The Canadian economy is strong and our financial markets are strong.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, immediately after the Conservatives broke their promise not to tax income trusts, the unelected minister, Michael Fortier, told devastated Canadians to take a Valium. Again yesterday, Canadians lost another $5 billion after the market plunged, putting the losses at more than $30 billion this week.
 Will the Public Works minister apologize for his callous and insensitive remarks?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the minister was simply suggesting that people not panic in the midst of short term market fluidity. Perhaps the member of the Liberal Party would like to provide opposite advice and encourage investors to panic. I do not think that is responsible.
 People who are vested in the stock markets or in any form of investment need to take a long view, with balanced, diversified portfolios. What we have done this week is to create a more balanced taxation framework that creates neutrality and not reverse incentives for companies to structure themselves in a way that is unproductive for our economy and which allows them not to pay their fair--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
TaxationMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government does not like the figure of $3.9 billion, which is the amount needed to correct the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and Quebec. Not only the Bloc Québécois says so, but Quebec's finance minister does as well.
In fact, based on the study by the Council of the Federation, on April 12, Michel Audet concluded that the fiscal imbalance totalled $3.8 billion in round figures. He stated in the National Assembly that, “That is what we have asked for”. 
Does the government intend to respond favourably to Quebec's request by making a commitment in the budget to pay $3.9 billion a year, and not a penny less, to correct the fiscal imbalance?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Mr. Gagné, the director of the institute of applied economics at the HEC, said, “I feel that the statements by [Mr.] Boisclair and [the leader of the Bloc Québécois] are not the result of a different interpretation of our conclusions, but of a highly dubious manipulation of some of the data in our report”.
To come up with this erroneous figure, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is using a fictional amount that the committee does not even recommend. The Bloc Québécois is living in a dreamworld, but we are living in the real world, and we are going to—
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would do well to listen Quebec's finance minister. The reason why the Conservatives do not like the figure of $3.9 billion is that the Prime Minister is looking for an excuse to renege on his promise to Quebeckers to correct the fiscal imbalance.
Will the Prime Minister keep his solemn promise to include in the next budget the payment of $3.9 billion a year, and not a penny less, to correct the fiscal imbalance?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the government will honour the commitment it made to correct the fiscal imbalance through talks with the provinces.
However, we will not accept just any figure that comes from anyone and is suggested by the Bloc Québécois, a completely powerless party that cannot deliver the goods for Quebeckers. Today, they are talking about $4 billion. Why not $10 billion or even $20 billion? The Bloc Québécois is pulling figures out of the air.
We are working closely with the Government of Quebec to correct this fiscal imbalance, which was created by the previous Liberal government.
Public SafetyMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if another Arar incident should occur, if another Canadian citizen were to languish somewhere in an appalling prison of a dictatorial regime, where he could potentially be tortured because of an RCMP mistake, would the minister think that he should be given this information so that he could advise cabinet on the action to be taken?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, did he say yes or no?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  He said yes.
Serge Ménard:  Mr. Speaker, now that he knows this information was concealed from the ministers responsible for the RCMP, and that an RCMP sergeant got away with only losing a day of leave for having sexually assaulted several female members of the force, that there was a total lack of cooperation with the commission for public complaints against the RCMP, that there were irregularities in the management of the pension fund, and that the inquiry went on for so long that it was not possible to bring forward any charges, does the minister still have full confidence in RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli? What is he waiting for to ask for his resignation?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we will accept Justice O'Connor's 23 recommendations because we believe they are good ones that will strengthen our system and make it more effective.
Firearms RegistryHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time this week, I am asking the Prime Minister—not his Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister of Public Safety—to answer Hayder Kadhim's question. That ought to be clear after four times.
Hayder's question is simple: Why does the Prime Minister want to abolish a firearms registry that has proven its worth and saved lives, when it costs very little to maintain?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, what happened at Dawson College was a tragedy. We want to prevent other tragedies like it. That is why we will implement a system that requires a licence to own, purchase or possess any kind of firearm. People will have to go through a process to get that licence, and we want to eliminate the possibility of a mentally unstable individual possessing a firearm.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, that is just shameful. Mr. Kadhim's question is about the gun registry and the minister's answer is about gun licensing. 
If the minister and his government want to play word games with this young man, they should have the courage to do it to his face. 
For the fifth time, Mr. Kadhim's question for the Prime Minister is: Would the Prime Minister explain why he wants to dismantle the gun registry, which has proven to have saved many lives and which now costs next to nothing to maintain?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I and my office have put in some calls. I would sincerely like to meet with Mr. Kadhim. His press secretary has informed us that he is very busy. I will be in Montreal next week or the week after. However, I will meet with him any time he would like because we are on the same page. We want to see more effective gun control and crime reduced.
It would help the public debate if the Liberals would clarify that we are not eliminating the registry. We are taking away one portion of it, the portion that the Auditor General said was ineffective and very expensive. We want a system that reduces--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for London West.
Public SafetyHon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that during the last election the Conservative Party was willing to say anything to anyone to get a vote. 
Yesterday, before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, department officials exposed the minister by admitting that it will cost $1 billion to follow through on his plan to arm border guards.
Will the minister admit that he made a mistake during the campaign and take the advice of the RCMP Commissioner who said that arming border guards was “not the optimum answer”?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, a numbers game is being played here by the Liberals. The fact is that in the budget that was tabled, we committed $1.4 billion to safety and security for Canadians, including making our borders stronger.
In that whole figure, the Liberals took a swipe at less than 10% of it and said that was $100 million and that if it is taken over 10 years it is $1 billion. If we take it over 100 years, I guess it would be $10 billion.
The fact is that we respond when our men and women on the front lines ask for the equipment, the tools and the training they need to do the job. We stand up for them. The Liberals desert them.
Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, apparently being a Conservative means never having to say, “I am sorry”. 
First the government told us that arming border guards would cost $100 million. Now the department is telling us that it will cost $1 billion to fund this poorly conceived campaign promise.
Could the minister tell the House who has their facts wrong, the minister himself or his departmental officials?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already explained the numbers game that is going on here but here are the facts.
For years the border officers asked the Liberals for more officers so they would not have a situation where a man or woman was alone at night at a border point in a remote area of the country, but the Liberals said no, that they had to be there alone. When the border guards asked for other protection, the Liberals said no. We said yes.
 What do the Liberals call the border officers who stand up for our protection and our security? They call them wimps. 
That is where we need an apology from the Liberals. Those men and women are not wimps. They are dedicated professionals. They are securing our borders and we are proud to be helping them do that.
FijiMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, very recently in Fiji there have been threats of possible action against the democratically elected government by some elements of the Fijian armed forces. This action could result in political instability in that region.
 Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please share the government's reaction to this news?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada is very concerned about the threats made against the democratically elected government of Fiji by the commander of the military forces.
Canada believes in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is critical that the armed forces in Fiji respect these principles. In addition, although the situation remains calm, the government is urging all Canadians to maintain a high level of personal security awareness, monitor news reports and follow the advice of local authorities.
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, aboriginal leaders across the country were shocked to hear that the Minister of Indian Affairs did not think Canada was responsible for resolving the land dispute at Caledonia because it predated Confederation.
Many of the treaties in this country were signed pre-Confederation. The Conservative government is trying to duck its responsibility to settle land claims.
When will the minister take responsibility, stop bickering with the province and solve the crisis?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's position is that pre-Confederation specific claims are a shared responsibility and the best way to solve these claims is through cooperation with the province and first nations.
We will continue to do so but, unfortunately, the Government of Ontario has been political grandstanding on this issue. We want to return to prudent, responsible negotiations.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the world is paying attention to how poorly the government is treating first nations. This week, Iran, notorious for its human rights abuses, called Canada to task for its treatment of aboriginal peoples.
It is shameful that the government has decided to abandon 20 years of work and vote against the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Will the government commit to supporting the declaration and resolving the situation in Caledonia so that Canada can hold its head up at the United Nations instead of lowering it with shame?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, our government will take absolutely no lectures from the government of Iran on the rights of aboriginals in our country.
We are moving forward for aboriginal Canadians and for families that have not seen matrimonial real property. We are moving forward with a plan that will bring forward human rights where they have not been before.
We are very proud of the action being taken by the minister. 
Fisheries and OceansJean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that fish and shellfish stocks are declining all over the world, the minority Conservative government is refusing to take the measures necessary to protect the Atlantic coast fishery. Last month, the federal government decided not to support an international moratorium on bottom trawling.
Now that we have irrefutable proof that the planet's marine life is in serious danger, will the government change its mind and ban bottom trawling?
Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is a very legitimate concern. It is something we have been aware of for quite some time. That is why we completely revamped NAFO. That is why we are taking a leadership role at the United Nations. We have to preserve and regrow our stocks. We have to preserve our habitat. We have to protect the ecosystem. If not, we could end up in such a disastrous situation.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, consultations have gone on long enough. We must act now if we want to save the industry. The Worm and Myers report was very clear. Fish and shellfish stocks are declining daily. These stocks are the Atlantic region's bread and butter. The only way to protect the fishery is to act immediately, which is what the rest of the international community is doing.
Will the minister finally recognize that we have to ban bottom trawling once and for all?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things. Number one, Canada has taken the leadership in approaching this crisis. By using the precautionary principle not only ourselves but in encouraging other countries around the world, we have taken the leadership.
The member might be talking about bottom trawling, one subset of a major problem base. We are not the only country, by ourselves, and all the fishing nations in the world support Canada's stand, because that is only one part of the problem. We have to deal with the full problem or we are going to be in trouble.
Veterans AffairsMr. Gary Merasty (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hot on the heels of the broken income trust promise, here is another example of the Conservatives failing to honour campaign promises. As we now know, the Conservatives' election platform was apparently a farce. Nevertheless, they promised real compensation for first nations, Métis and Inuit veterans. The Prime Minister even repeated as much in a radio campaign in my riding.
It is now clear, after 10 months, that the promise of immediate action has been broken. There is no sign of any action whatsoever. Why is the government refusing to keep its promise to aboriginal veterans?
Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year our government is spending $352 million more than the previous government on all veterans, including aboriginal veterans. 
We will continue to talk to veterans groups, including aboriginal veterans, which I have done. We are committed to making the lives of all veterans better, and they can count on the government continuing to do that.
Gary Merasty: Mr. Speaker, as we approach Remembrance Day, they deserve to be honoured.
 Action needs to be taken immediately, but all they get are hollow excuses. These veterans gave up more than their security when they signed up. First nations veterans gave up their treaty rights. Métis veterans were not allowed to identify as Métis, yet they signed on to fight for this country in unprecedented numbers.
The Conservatives and the Prime Minister made a sacred promise when they pledged immediate action to compensate aboriginal veterans. Why did they break this promise?
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there is much that I agree with in the member's preamble in terms of the dedication of our aboriginal veterans and their commitment to Canada, but I want to remind him that he is a member of a party and a government that was in power for 13 years and ignored aboriginal veterans, ignored all veterans and ignored our defence spending and our men and women in uniform. That is the Liberals' sad record after 13 years.
We are not going to do that. We are going to work on every one of these issues, issue by issue. We are going to work through them. We are going to be there to support those aboriginal--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, existing programs can help farm producers suffering unforseeable income losses, such as the producers in Saint-Amable who have had problems with the golden nematode. But according to the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, existing programs are inadequate.
When will the government face facts and come to the aid of producers in Saint-Amable by introducing a program specifically for them?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that this government worked quickly to limit the crisis that hit all of Quebec to just one region, allowing trade worth several million dollars to the province to resume. The government is looking at the issue of financial support above and beyond the programs that are already available to producers in the area under restriction.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the parliamentary secretary said in the press release he issued yesterday. He said that the existing programs are enough. He is creating false hope.
This morning, I spoke to the president of the Fédération des producteurs de pommes de terre du Québec, Pierre Chouinard, who told me that the CAIS program was not working. On October 6, the minister announced that he planned to set up a new disaster assistance program.
Given that, under the Health of Animals Act, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency compensates producers who are forced to destroy their animals, does the minister intend to do the same for producers in Saint-Amable and provide them with immediate compensation under the Plant Protection Act?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to believe that producers have seen just how quickly this government can do things. The minister has asked his officials to keep working closely with officials in Quebec on financial assistance above and beyond the existing programs.
Unlike the Bloc Québécois, we do not just talk, we can act.
Foreign AffairsHon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the Minister of Foreign Affairs  compared the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon to “the same kind of chaos at a shopping mall at Christmas near closing time or in an airport during a snowstorm”. This is another callous, highly insensitive remark from our top diplomat, and the international community is noticing.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs apologize for likening tens of thousands of Canadians caught in a war zone and fearing for their lives to this? Will he apologize to those Canadians?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, this was one of the most successful evacuations Canada has ever undertaken. All the diplomats and everybody, all of the Canadian people, worked together to bring Canadians out of a war zone. We are very proud of the record of the Government of Canada on this file.
HealthMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Commonwealth Fund released a report comparing Canada's health care system to those of six other developed nations.
Can the Minister of Health inform the House of the judgment of Canada's physicians who were polled for this study in regard to the previous Liberal government's legacy for our health care system?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a stunning indictment after 13 years of Liberal misrule when it comes to the funding of our health care system. After that mismanagement, it is not surprising that physicians had that point of view when it comes to our health care system.
 Canada's new government is taking action to reduce wait times and improve the quality of health care, with 1.2 billion extra dollars this year alone for our health care system. We are acting for Canadians and for health care.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the languages that were first heard in Canada are dying and the Conservative government is lending a helping hand.
 In the Northwest Territories, the number of aboriginal people fluent in their languages fell from 59% in 1984 to 44% in 2004. The figures are even worse for the rest of Canada. Soon, languages that have been spoken in this country for millennia will be gone. 
With a $13 billion surplus, can the minister please explain why the government has cut $160 million from aboriginal language programs?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the previous government, in its usual way, always set aside moneys and made some big announcements but did nothing with that money. There were no plans.
 We intend to work with the groups to make sure that these languages, some of which are in jeopardy, and the culture of the aboriginal communities are there. In fact, this government has committed $40 million in permanent funding for the aboriginal languages initiative.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, Innuvialukun, Gwich'in, North Slavey, South Slavey, Chipewyan, Tlicho, Cree, Beaver, Hare, and Mitchef, all of these languages in my riding and many others across the country could become extinct without proper funding.
The minister calls her work a reallocation of funds. Should aboriginal people trust that statement any more than senior citizens should have trusted a promise not to tax income trusts?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, I am very aware that there are languages that are on the brink of extinction. That is why we need a plan. We have to record these languages. We have to make sure, instead of continually talking about what is to be done with vast sums of money and doing nothing, that we are actually going to act.
Canadian Wheat BoardHon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is attempting to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, yet the Conservative sheep representing Winnipeg refused to defend the city they represent.
 When the minister speaks in Winnipeg today, will he tell the chamber of commerce audience about the 460 lost jobs and the $66 million in lost wages and salaries in the city?
My question is for the Minister of Justice. How much damage must his government inflict on the city of Winnipeg before he will stand up and say “no more”?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I have duly noted my colleague's question. I am convinced that our government will act in the best interests of this sector and I will refer the question to my minister so that he may respond next week.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Liberals are skilled in dithering on important issues such as addressing land claims. The B.C. treaty process talks started by the former Conservative government were followed by 13 years of Liberal inaction. It took a Conservative government coming back into power to bring about a final agreement with the Lheidli T'enneh Band in an official signing ceremony.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell the House about this great new chapter for aboriginals in British Columbia?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that last Sunday was a historic step, with the first modern treaty signing ceremony to mark the final agreement in Prince George, British Columbia, with the Lheidli T'enneh Band. B.C. minister Mike de Jong said that we are actually seeing things accomplished after years of frustration. 
This morning's National Post wrote that it is “a realistic (and thus workable) solution that could be the model” native agreement throughout B.C. and the rest of Canada. It only took Canada's new government a few months to act and get things done, not decades like the former Liberal government.
InfrastructureMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): The Trappist monks have put the Oka Abbey up for sale. A group of regional organizations has already obtained $3 million in funding from Quebec, under the Quebec infrastructure program for municipalities, for an agritourism project. The federal government's contribution is the only thing needed for the project to go ahead.
Considering that he has met with the group, does the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the minister responsible for Quebec, intend to provide the $3 million needed for the project?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those in charge of the Oka Abbey project have applied for funding under the infrastructure funding program. Quebec holds one key for this program and we hold the second. Each party provides one third of the funding. 
The application had been submitted, but the Quebec government decided that it would not keep it in the same program and changed it. In that case, we will not intervene. However, the project was resubmitted to Economic Development Canada. We have analysed the application and with regard to the purchase of the land, unfortunately, we are unable to provide funding at present. We will only be able to intervene in respect of the second request concerning—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Government AppointmentsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is Friday and that means it is time for the blue plate special. On the menu today is Christopher Essex, a government appointment to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council who denies the science of climate change. 
The amendments to the accountability act that the NDP put forward will eliminate this kind of political cronyism. Sadly, the Liberal Senate is blocking changes to political patronage as usual and Conservatives right now are scrambling to make as many appointments as they can.
Will the Conservatives withdraw Mr. Essex's appointment and immediately halt the appointments gravy train?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, indeed, we do make merit based appointments to all positions regardless of what position that may be, but the reality is that the member is correct in pointing out that the Liberals continue to hold up the federal accountability act. They continue to block the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history.
On the subject of appointments, they attempted to amend the accountability act to legalize the practice of phantom jobs. On this Halloween week, they should be ashamed of themselves for still looking out for old Liberal ghosts and old Liberal cronies.
Federal-Provincial RelationsMario Silva: Mr. Speaker, once again Torontonians and Ontarians have been let down by the government. The Minister of Indian Affairs refuses to meet to help deal with Caledonia. The Prime Minister snubs the premier and now the government has failed to provide funding for Expo 2015 in Toronto. This is proof that the government simply does not care about Ontario.
Given the government's failure to support Expo 2015, will the government now commit to secure stable funding for Toronto's waterfront redevelopment?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, we did support the Expo bid. We committed $600 million to that effort. I am not sure why the Ontario Liberals would not make a commitment to Toronto. Perhaps the member for Ottawa South could get us an answer to that question.
We support Toronto. We support Ontario. This is a lost opportunity. We asked Toronto and the province to work with us to ensure that Toronto and Ontario play a full role in Canada and the world.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: That brings question period to an end. Before we proceed to routine proceedings, I would ask members who do not intend to stay to please clear the chamber, instead of having the usual chit-chat.
Points of OrderSue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday the Minister of Public Safety, in response to a question, implied that the Liberal Party did not support the age of consent legislation that was announced. I am sure he needs the opportunity not to misdirect this House in what he said yesterday and to correct the record because he knows that is part of the Liberal justice plan.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not the first time that a dispute as to facts has been raised as a point of order. We will now proceed to routine proceedings.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Indian Claims CommissionRod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2005-06 annual report of the Indian Claims Commission.
Committees of the HouseJudy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth and ninth reports of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The reports deal with the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, and the funding cuts and the new mandate for Status of Women Canada.
PetitionsSue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House a couple of pages of petitions from the London area. The petitioners are looking for an amendment to the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present this petition signed by individuals from my constituency of Crowfoot, from Coronation, Brownfield, Castor and Houssar. They feel that marriage should be promoted in this country and defended as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and they call upon Parliament to reopen this issue.
As well, they feel that a child has a natural right to know and be raised by his or her father and mother. They also feel that the decisions of courts and legislative bodies should be made in the best interests of the child.
Ms. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions in the House today comprising hundreds of signatures from people in the Churchill riding, both of which state that the government's child care plan does not address the needs and demands of rural ridings.
The petitioners therefore request that the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development reinstate the early learning and child care initiative as instituted by the former Liberal government.
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to present three petitions from Manitoba with hundreds of names on them, calling on the government to reopen the issue of marriage in this Parliament and to repeal or to amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and to defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I have again another petition that calls on Parliament and the government to halt the immediate deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to this situation.
I also received a message on November 1 from CAW Local 252 that Patricia Grant, a woman who has lived and worked in Canada for 13 years, was just recently deported, again another example of the need for action. We cannot be deporting people who are contributing to our society and to our economy.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 97 and 98.
Mr. Pierre Paquette:  What studies, analyses and reports relating to the fiscal imbalance have the Department of Finance or Queen’s Privy Council produced or commissioned since January 24, 2006?
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the issue of fiscal balance has garnered much public debate and study.
Many academics, think tanks and stakeholder organizations have produced studies on fiscal balance. The only studies commissioned by the Department of Finance were those from the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing. The expert panel was tasked by the Department of Finance with reviewing the two federal transfers and, as part of its work, commissioned studies, undertook consultations and met with a number of provincial and territorial governments, academics and experts. The expert panel was established on March 21, 2005, and it presented its final reports to the Government of Canada on June 5, 2006. These reports are available publicly at http://www.eqtff-pfft.ca/english/epreports.asp.
In addition to commissioning this major report, the Department of Finance produces its own analysis on the issue of fiscal balance, as well as analyzing academic and stakeholder commentary and proposals in the development of its advice to the Minster of Finance.
“Restoring Fiscal Balance in Canada,” the companion paper to the budget presented to the House of Commons on May 2, 2006, was a major study prepared by the Department of Finance.
Following the tabling of “Restoring Fiscal Balance,” the Department of Finance continues to work on proposals to meet the fiscal balance commitments. It sought the input of Canadians through online consultations, and is in the process of reviewing the submissions, many of which were released publicly by stakeholders.
Pierre Paquette: What long-term estimates (two years or longer) have been carried out or requested since January 24, 2006 by the Department of Finance or by the Queen’s Privy Council with regard to Canada's financial situation?
Jim Flaherty:  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance conducts regular projections of Canada’s financial situation and outlook, which cover the medium term outlook, i.e., the next five fiscal years. Two year fiscal projections for 2006-07 and 2007-08 were published in the budget presented to the House of Commons on May 2, 2006
 In addition, in preparing for the economic and fiscal update to be released in the fall of 2006, the Department of Finance is preparing five year fiscal projections to the year 2011-12, based on the average of private sector economic forecasts. Private sector forecasters have also been hired to prepare five year projections of the government’s financial situation. 
[Stage Direction]

[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be read the third time and passed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan had eight minutes left when we last debated this issue.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, before we went into question period, I was talking about the fact that Bill C-9, as originally presented by the government, would have had a severe impact on first nations, Métis and the Inuit. They already are severely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Removing the option of conditional sentences for so many offences would have only increased the numbers of aboriginal people in prison.
 I want to quote from the Teslin Tlingit Council letter, dated October 20, asking the government to reconsider its position around conditional sentences. It states:
 Within the Yukon, conditional sentences have proven to be an effective instrument utilized by the Territorial Courts working with First Nation community processes, such as the Teslin Tlingit Peacemaker Sentencing Panel. Conditional sentences have contributed toward the promotion and exercise of community accountability and support of offenders to achieve the successful completion of their conditions, while also acknowledging and responding to the interests of those who have been victimized by crime. The result is that families are kept together with a focus on balancing retribution and rehabilitation of the individual, which provides for the benefit of the overall community. 
 It is incumbent upon this House to consult appropriately with aboriginal people to ensure that the justice system is not going to take its toll on their families and communities.
This bill, as amended, was the result of diligent work by all members of the opposition party on that committee. I want to especially single out the member for  London West who worked with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and a member from the Bloc to have the bill amended to reflect the wishes of Canadians. 
Canadians had been saying that they recognized the serious concerns. Canadians had some serious concerns where conditional sentences were used for serious violent crimes. Canadians thought that in those cases they were inappropriate. As a result, the amended bill reflects the fact that serious violent crime is not a situation where conditional sentences should be used. 
This bill now reflects the intention to provide notices to judges to be much more careful when considering offences involving serious violent crime.
 I want to use an example of serious sexual assaults. The committee heard from aboriginal women of cases where there were very serious assaults, yet the severity of the assault was not given sufficient consideration when conditional sentencing was considered.
There were a very small number of cases involved in this kind of serious violent crime, but it is very important that judges hear from parliamentarians that using conditional sentences in those kinds of circumstances just was not appropriate. This amended bill provides that direction to the courts not to repeat those kinds of abuses of conditional sentencing.
Much has been made about the use of conditional sentences, and there has been a saying to never let the facts get in the way of rhetoric and a lot of overblown statements. However, the opposition parties did consider the facts. They looked at the information that had been provided by a number of witnesses that talked about the benefits of conditional sentencing. In fact, Canada has been a leader in the world in making conditional sentences work.
Conditional sentences are a step in between probation and incarceration. Part of the benefit of conditional sentences is that it allows the judge the latitude to order treatment and other rehabilitative measures. Statistics show that when offenders have access to treatment and other rehabilitative measures, their chances of returning to prison go down.
This is an important factor because Canadians want prevention. They do not want people to end up in prison to begin with. They to ensure that they have access to housing and to education, and to other social supports that prevent them from getting involved in a life of crime to begin with. Canadians do not want people to return to jail. We know that if we provide some measures, in cases where it is not a serious violent crime, to keep people out of prison, their chances go down of re-offending.
These numbers come from Statistics Canada, from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. It says that those who served a conditional sentence were less likely to return to corrections than those who served a prison sentence. These are statistics from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in 2003 and 2004.
It is often said in this House that the victims often get left out of this equation. There was a study conducted by Julian Roberts and Kent Roach which concentrated upon the victims of crime and their attitudes toward conditional sentencing. Let me refer to what came out of that study, which again was concentrated on the victims of crime. 
It was found that most rehabilitation programs can be more effectively implemented when the offender is in the community rather than in custody; that prison is no more effective a deterrent than the more severe intermediate punishments such as enhanced probation; and that the widespread interest in restorative justice has sparked interest in community based sanctions. Restorative justice initiatives seek to promote the interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice system, but particularly at the sentencing stage.
There has been some work done. I want to put this in context. We talk about the Conservatives being Republican-like, so I need to bring in statistics from the U.S. According to an article in Vanity Fair:
 If the blue states are sinkholes of moral decay, as right-wing pundits insist, how come red states lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarceration, among other evils? 
This Vanity Fair article talks about a book called Red State, Blue State. It says that red states tend to be the most violent places to live. These are Republican states. Red states dominate the rankings of violent crimes despite their emphasis on judgment and incarceration. It seems that the odds of being shot are much higher in a red state and they are the top 15 states in the rate of death by firearms. In the U.S., which has already had this history of being so-called tough on crime, we have seen that crime goes up. 
I would argue that we need to look at the appropriate use of conditional sentences and we also need to look at being tough on the causes of crime and being smart on crime. In those cases, what we really need to do is look at adequate enforcement, prevention and a social safety net that supports keeping people out of poverty and supports the appropriate drug and alcohol rehabilitation as being very necessary.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and I would like to comment on the tough on crime statement that crime goes up. It does not seem to make sense to me. I would seriously question the statistic. In some cases, at least for petty crimes, the rate goes down because when nothing is done about it, people stop reporting it.
 I had an individual in my riding, before my riding boundaries changed in 2004, whose store kept getting robbed. Guys, usually young people, would break in at night. They would break down the door, take some stuff and leave. They would leave the door open so that especially in winter it was really not a good thing. He would report it and by the time the police arrived, the damage was done and when they did find the offenders, they got a little slap on the wrist and kept doing it again.
From the victim's point of view the crime rate went down because when he reported these robberies, his insurance company kept increasing his premiums due to the fact that he was a higher risk. He received the punishment and the other guys went free. He said it only made sense to him that he would not report it any more and so he did not.
The incredible part of the story is that one night he was suspicious that they had not hit for a while and maybe that was going to be the night, so he decided to spend the night in his store. Sure enough, they broke in the door. He caught them and held them for the police. The kids got home before he did because he was left to clean up the broken door before he could go home. The police just took the kids home and that was it.
I would like the member to respond to the fact that we need to have accurate statistics based on fact, not just on what is reported.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the member say that he would actually like to see things based on fact, because that is what I am doing. I am quoting fact, not rhetoric.
This is from the Bureau of Justice statistics in the United States. It says that of the ten states with the highest number of total inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, nine were red. Of the ten states with the most female inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, all were red. According to these very same statistics, it was the red states that had the highest incidence of crime, so their being tough on crime by putting people in jail was not solving the issue.
I would argue that part of the problem, and the corrections people themselves will say this, is that we need more data in Canada. We need more studies, for example, on how conditional sentencing impacts on aboriginal people. We need to know what the rate of recidivism is. We need to know when people are given access to a rehabilitation and treatment program, whether or not it shortens the length of time people are in prison and increases the length of time that people are able to stay in the community and perhaps contribute to a more productive society. 
I certainly would be pleased to provide the member with the statistics from the Bureau of Justice in the United States.
Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House who worked on the bill know that the appropriate delineation is the serious personal injuries and organized crime, which would bring in any offence in the Criminal Code if organized crime was involved.
I have heard the Minister of Justice talk as if some dangerous offender's hearing is going to happen to people. It seems there is some misleading going on about exactly the type of offences. I heard it a couple of times. The first couple of times I thought that maybe it was a mistake and I was not hearing quite properly.
Maybe certain members opposite who do not seem to understand the legislation properly and what the legislation puts forward should be going back to the justice officials and getting proper briefings. I just want to hear the hon. member's comments.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London West for her work on the committee.
The intent of the bill, as amended, is that it will not be used for the most serious violent crimes. That is why the amendments were put forward in that fashion. It should be noted that the only time judges can even use this particular amended bill is if the sentence is to be two years less a day.
That was a very good comment on the member's part.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-9. I can say that in thee inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre which I represent, crime and safety issues are overwhelmingly the number one top of mind issues of the people that I represent when I canvass their views or when they provide me with their opinions in an unsolicited way. Overwhelmingly what my constituents want to talk about are crime and safety issues.
I have tried to address those concerns to accurately reflect those interests. I have stood 22 times in this 39th Parliament to speak on crime and justice issues in my riding. This speech today is the 23rd along these lines that I have made. 
I agree 100% with the people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre that Canadians have a right to safe streets. My constituents have a right to feel safe in their homes. Members of Parliament and elected representatives have a duty and an obligation to do everything they can to make the streets safe and to give people the reasonable comfort that they want.
I can recount how things have changed since I grew up in Winnipeg. It was not unusual when I was a kid that after dinner we simply went outside and played. We played hard. We ran and played with all of our friends and neighbours. All of us would pour out of our houses right after dinner and we would not come back home until dusk or until our mothers were hollering out the front door for us to come home.
Those days are over. No one does that anymore in the inner city of Winnipeg. They cannot; it is not safe. Parents cannot send their kids to the corner store to buy a quart of milk in some neighbourhoods in my riding. 
The entire city is in mourning, in shock and in grief at the depravity that occurred only 10 days ago not blocks from my office in the inner city of Winnipeg. I will not go into the graphic details, but what occurred was one of the most horrific gang related murders of an innocent bystander that has ever taken place in Winnipeg. It reminded people that things have gone too far. Citizens demand corrective action. They demand that MPs and elected people do what they can to make their streets safe.
In that vein I try to support as many of the bills on criminal justice, crime and safety issues that I possibly can. I voted yes on Bill C-9 on June 6, 2006 at second reading. My party was in support of Bill C-9 again just this week. In the interim, the bill was dramatically amended at committee. The Liberals moved dramatic motions which were supported by the Bloc and the NDP. Therefore, by the time we got to vote on Bill C-9 again, it was a radically changed bill, but it still has the effect of reducing conditional sentencing.
The hue and cry that was generated in many communities, my own included, is that conditional sentencing was being used too frequently for the wrong people and the wrong types of crime. People were demanding justice.
I am told that 500 to 600 people per year will no longer be eligible for conditional sentencing upon conviction under Bill C-9 as it currently stands, even as amended by the committee. The bill as originally introduced by the Minister of Justice would have caused about 2,600 people per year to be ineligible for conditional sentencing upon conviction. I agree that is a dramatic difference, but I also remind people that we have gone a step toward using conditional sentencing less.
I do not know what terrible forces compel children and youth in my riding to commit the atrocity that occurred 10 days ago on Sergeant Avenue. A 32-year-old woman went to the 7-Eleven to buy a quart of milk and met her death by a swarm of children 12, 14 and 15 years old; she was murdered brutally on a street in my riding. I do not blame the people of Winnipeg to be demanding an appropriate response. 
What has created these social conditions is a complex mix of hopelessness, desperation, chronic long term poverty, violence, substance abuse and drugs. I do not know what the whole recipe is to create these appalling social conditions, but it has gone from bad to worse in recent years. Today, 47% of all the families in my riding live below the poverty line and 52% of all the children in my riding live below the poverty line. Those are alarming statistics, the worst in Canada. They got worse during the 13 years of Liberal reign. They went from bad to worse as every social program, which tried to hold that troubled neighbourhood together, was cut, hacked and slashed.
The cutbacks to the EI fund alone took $20.8 million a year out of my riding, already the poorest riding in Canada. That $20.8 million was sucked right out of there. It is like having the payrolls of two major auto plants ripped out of the riding for no compelling reason. It drove people from the edge of despair into absolute desperation.
I am not saying that poverty is the root cause of crime. I am saying that people in those appalling social conditions are a lot more likely to be exposed to, victims of, and part of criminal activity.
 I suppose the god of the Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice, CPC) is a vengeful god, but revenge is only one element of sentencing. We have to address that. There are other motivations. Revenge and punishment, yes, but there has to be some recognition that rehabilitation has to be one of the goals. Yes, we are trying to protect society from certain people who should be locked away, but let us not lose sight of the bigger picture, so when we get tough on crime, we have to get smart on crime at the same time. I do not want that ever to become a cliché.
Deterrence and denunciation is important and we have to ensure that the sentence is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. I cannot imagine a sentence appropriate enough to be commensurate with the crime that happened not blocks away from my office when a 32 year old innocent woman went to a 7-Eleven store to buy a quart of milk. I will not go into the details because they are too horrific to share here today. Let it simply be said that Winnipeg is reeling in shock at the gravity of this offence.
As good as it feels to punish and as tempting as it is to be motivated by revenge and vengeance, I sympathize with those who are calling out for that reaction. We have to contain ourselves. This is the very time that leadership is required. We cannot shape social policy while we are in the midst of the backlash to one of the most horrific anecdotal crimes seen in our country, and certainly in my city of Winnipeg. In a sense, we have lost our innocence.
Winnipeg is in shock the same way the city of Victoria was when Reena Virk was so brutally murdered. This is the type of injury that this offence has done to my community. It is why the papers today are full of absolute demands for swift justice, for tougher sentences and for stricter penalties. The Minister of Justice unfortunately is capitalizing on this. He is playing politics with the misery associated with this terrible crime. He is out there in the newspapers saying that the NDP is soft on crime because we do not agree with every single thing he says. 
In fact, we voted for eight or nine of his ten or twelve justice bills recently, trying to make the criminal justice system more appropriate. Just because we do not accept everything he says as chapter and verse of the gospel according to the Minister of Justice, does not mean we are soft on crime. It means we are trying to make Bill C-9 better. Committee stage is for that, and it felt the bill went too far.
I voted for Bill C-9. I will support it when it comes up again, as amended, but do not let anybody in the House try to say that we are soft on crime because we tried to make that bill better
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult not to stand in the House and say that the NDP is not soft on crime. 
I am going to ask the member about the contradiction. He talks about being tough on crime. I have heard him say that a number of times in the House. Yet he voted against the tough measures proposed by the original bill introduced by the government. 
The government wanted to ensure that people who broke into homes, burned down property and stole cars could not serve their sentence in the comfort of their living rooms. Why would the member have voted against such measures? We know, as citizens, that criminals behind bars cannot break into homes, steal cars or burn down property. The list of offences goes on.
It is unbelievable the things that the member and his party believe should be eligible for conditional sentences, things like assault with a weapon, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons.
Why the contradiction? If he is tough on crime, why did he not stand up, support the original bill as introduced by the government and ensure that these types of sentences could not be served at home?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I voted, yes, for Bill C-9 on June 6, and I will vote yes for it again in its amended form.
Bills evolve as they go through the process. I believe Bill C-25, the proceeds of crime bill, is not tough on crime and we are trying to amend it to get tougher.
I do not know why the government is going so light on criminals in being able to keep their luxury homes, their tricked out Escalades and their fancy motor boats. We believe those assets should be seized and put the reverse onus on the criminal to prove they were purchased by legitimately earned monies and not the proceeds of crime.
I do not know why--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the member's speech. He used the word revenge as it relates to this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is there needs to be a component in all of our justice system in terms of preventing crime and rehabilitation, but there also needs to be a strong deterrence. Deterrence is far different than revenge.
Would the member comment on the effectiveness of providing effective deterrents in our laws so people who are considering these kinds of actions will not do that?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: The god of the Minister of Justice may be a vengeful god, but my faith informs me that revenge is not the only objective in sentencing. Deterrence and denunciation, the two ruling factors that judges address in sentencing, do not work when the social fabric has collapsed. People are not embarrassed by what they do, when they are dealing in crisis social conditions. Those two social pressures do not have the same effect that they have in a stable middle class wholesome community like Steinbach where the minister is from. Where I come from, they do not apply.
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I have a lot of respect for the member and his comment. 
I guess I am having trouble, along with many people understanding, his new position with regard to Bill C-9. 
On August 18, the member stated, “I think it's a social experiment that has failed catastrophically. If the idea was to save money by having less people in jail the trade-off hasn't been worth it”. Does the member not understand that by gutting Bill C-9, he is putting the very same car thieves, arsonists and break and enter people back on to the street to commit these crimes in the very community that he claims to protect?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: The Bill C-9, which I supported on November 1 and for which I voted, still takes approximately 600 convicted criminals out of eligibility for conditional sentences. It does not go as far as the minister's initial proposal, but I voted for the initial proposal as well.
I will tell my colleague from Brandon, had the bill not been amended, I would have voted for it the way it was in its original form, but it came to us amended. I supported it when it was in its raw state, I supported it in its amended state and I would have supported it had it come to us in its raw state again.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-9 at third reading stage and to put things into context.
In 1996, the Minister of Justice—if my memory serves me correctly, it was Allan Rock at that time—introduced Bill C-41 following a federal-provincial-territorial conference. At the time of the conference, all the justice ministers—whether they were Liberal, New Democratic, Conservative or separatist—were quite concerned about the possibility of the inmate population doubling. Canada had the fourth highest incarceration rate in the world at the time. When Allan Rock introduced Bill C-41, one third of all inmates were serving time for failing to pay fines.
The government always forgets this little piece of history, but when Bill C-41 was introduced, it received support from all the justice ministers. There was even a white paper on the growth in inmate population and we were well aware that the United States was the country that incarcerated the most, followed by Russia, Canada and South Africa.
When Bill C-41 was passed, an intermediate offence was created between imprisonment and probation, called conditional sentencing. However, it would be terribly dishonest to suggest that conditional sentencing, which is provided under section 742 of the Criminal Code, is not well defined.
Sometimes we hear government types talking as though conditional sentencing were completely up to the judge's discretion, that judges do not obey a single rule and that the legislator left this option open without any framework.
I want to remind this House and the government that before handing down conditional sentences, in accordance with section 742, judges must respect four conditions. First, there must be no minimum sentence. Second, the sentence, imprisonment, must be less than two years. Third, the judge must be convinced that the person does not pose a risk to the community where that person is known. Fourth, the judge must be convinced that the conditional sentence corresponds to one of the sentence determination objectives codified in section 718 in the Criminal Code. This is an important condition, as well, I believe.
Once again, we must remember that the Canadian Sentencing Commission—the Archambault commission—which the Conservatives set up at the end of their mandate in 1984, recommended in its 1987 report that Parliament codify a number of sentencing objectives. Among the objectives listed in the Criminal Code are deterrence, denunciation and reprobation. There is also rehabilitation. The judge must be convinced that at least one of these objectives applies to impose a conditional sentence. There can be a number of objectives, but there are situations where denunciation takes precedence and requires a prison sentence. In a certain number of other situations, the objective is rehabilitation, and the judge can impose probation or a conditional sentence of imprisonment.
Section 742 clearly states that a judge must take a number of factors into account.
Throughout the committee's review of this bill, the Conservatives, with their own special brand of demagoguery, have tried to convince everyone that anyone opposed to Bill C-9 was soft on crime, indecisive and lacking solidarity with victims of crime.
I believe this kind of talk is unacceptable, to say the least. Conditional sentencing is, in reality, an extremely marginal part of the sentencing system.
I have some statistics from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which supports Bill C-9.
In 2003—these are the most recent statistics available—257,127 cases ended in a conviction. Of those 257,127 cases, 13,267 individuals were given conditional sentences. 13,267 conditional sentences in 257,127 convictions is a little less than 6%.
The Conservatives are worried about conditional sentencing. It is possible that in some of those 13,267 convictions conditional sentences were not appropriate. We must remember that conditional sentencing is a marginal part of the justice system and that it is governed by a number of conditions.
When a court of justice hands down a conditional sentence, the convicted person is subject to surveillance—this can be electronic surveillance, a curfew or a requirement to report to a supervisor or remain in a given jurisdiction. None of this is as discretionary as the government would have had us believe during this debate.
What did the government do with Bill C-9? It tried to introduce a list of offences.
The government, with a deplorable lack of discrimination, asked its officials to find and prepare a list of all offences in the Criminal Code punishable by more than 10 years' imprisonment . The list contained some 100 offences.
Just because an offence is punishable by 10 years' imprisonment does not mean that a judge will impose a 10-year sentence. The list of proposed offences will make it impossible, de facto, for a judge to hand down a conditional sentence. 
The problem with this way of doing things is that it is so lacking in balance as to be ridiculous. Why ridiculous? Because there are certain offences in the Criminal Code punishable by five years' imprisonment for which we do not believe that conditional sentencing is appropriate.
For example, failure to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years, pursuant to section 215 of the Criminal Code, is punishable by imprisonment of two years.
However, it is a disturbing offence. It may be more disturbing that a neighbour found guilty of child negligence is free in the community than that someone is sentenced to ten years for pirating software.
Pirating software is certainly a reprehensible crime, a violation of intellectual property and intellectual fraud, but it is not clear that an individual found guilty of pirating software or having stolen a computer cannot serve his sentence in the community under appropriate supervision.
There are other types of offences not included by the Conservatives. Yet, our citizens may find them even more disturbing. For example, infanticide, abandonment of a child, criminal breach of contract, and kidnapping of a child under 16.
Not all these offences appear on the list, compiled by the Conservative government, of crimes that are punishable by ten years in prison or more.
However, that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about the difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. I will take this opportunity to point out that all opposition parties—my neo-Bolshevik friends, the Liberals and the Bloc—voted unanimously against Bill C-9 at the committee report stage. Why? Because this is a bill on whose principle we can agree. Everyone agrees that conditional sentences are not a constitutional right. There are offences for which we do not wish the offenders to serve their sentence in the community. The Bloc Québécois has never claimed otherwise, because we are responsible individuals. 
It is not a matter of an automatic response and we hope the Conservatives will some day understand this. The Conservatives are opposed to the judiciary. They refuse to believe in the judgment of our judges. I will reword my statement. They refuse to believe in the ability of judges' to properly assess a situation. The Minister of Justice appeared before us. The Minister of Justice is my friend. I even feel like I am his little favourite. He seeks my presence, consults me and respects me. Our friendship will not be jeopardized simply because my party repeatedly opposes his bills. The minister is capable of separating his feelings of friendship for me—which I reciprocate—from the fact that I think he proposes bad bills. Indeed, the Minister of Justice is a man of great quality on a personal level.
However, his election platform makes no sense. As a little aside, thanks to the Access to Information Act, we obtained the analysis conducted by the Conservatives of their own platform. Not one public servant, familiar with the courts and understanding how the system works, would be willing to endorse the Conservative platform.
The Conservatives want to bring the justice system in line with American justice. God willing, this government will never win a majority.
Three ministers were able to cite just four bad decisions out of thousands. The judiciary needs to make it clearer to us as parliamentarians that the courts do not hand out conditional sentences in cases of serious personal injury, sexual assault or confinement, because these are crimes punishable by less than two years in prison. 
It is not because a prison sentence is less than two years that the crime is not serious. However, the courts and the judges are far more discerning than the government would have us believe. 
I see Conservative members champing at the bit. They want to ask me questions about break and enter, which is obviously a serious offence. The Supreme Court even said that a man's house is his castle. My house was robbed. They stole my VCR, three bottles of wine—you know how little I drink, I am practically a teetotaller—my CD collection, including a Diane Dufresne CD and a Charles Aznavour CD, and my computer. It felt like a terrible violation. It is not very pleasant to have your property stolen. Nonetheless, the Conservatives did not include break and enter in the list of exclusions. 
The punishment for break and enter is life in prison. The Criminal Code has never been amended. Since the advent of the Criminal Code in 1892, a judge has never sentenced anyone to life in prison for break and enter. 
In serious cases of break and enter a judge is certainly not going to hand down a conditional sentence.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker?
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): You have four and a half minutes remaining.
[Interjection]
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, fortune is smiling on me, I have four and a half minutes left.
I must say, this is what is dishonest about the Conservative rhetoric. In cases in which the Crown believes that a conditional sentence has been wrongly awarded, it is the Crown's duty, its privilege and its responsibility to appeal the decision. During the appeal, it must be proven that a conditional sentence was not appropriate.
That said, let us break this down even further. I have here the list of offences for which conditional sentences have been awarded. These statistics are not from the government, nor the Bloc Québécois. These statistics are from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Upon reviewing the cases that most often resulted in a conditional sentence, they were, for the most part, offences against property and fraud. There were also a large number of offences against the administration of justice and drug-trafficking offences.
Here again, when we talk about drug trafficking, the statistics can be misleading. As defined in the legislation, drug trafficking does not necessarily mean selling 300 kg of cocaine; it can be something else.
Here is an example. I am in my living room watching Hockey Night In Canada or some other program, and a friend offers me a joint. Did you know that, under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, that is considered drug trafficking? I am not encouraging people to smoke marijuana or any other substances. What I am saying is that we have to be very careful how we define an offence.
The statistics from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police indicate that conditional sentences have been handed down for a large number of offences, such as simple possession of marijuana and similar offences.
In closing, I would ask the Conservatives to keep a sense of proportion and nuance and to have some confidence in the judiciary. In some cases, tougher legislation is warranted.
The Bloc Québécois has introduced an anti-gang bill that reverses the onus of proof for proceeds of crime, in cases of organized crime and situations where people hold positions of significant authority. The legislation may have to be toughened. However, every time an attempt is made to generalize, every time there is a lack of nuance, there is a risk of poor criminal policy.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that no one wanted to ask the hon. member a question. He has been around here for a long time. He is a member who has taken an active interest in justice issues over the years and has been able to contribute to the justice committee in that time to make better legislation.
I was listening carefully to his remarks and there is much that I agree with in his synopsis of the history of what want on.
My recollection is a little bit different in some aspects. When the bill was originally brought forward, many people warned the justice minister of the time, which I suppose sometimes happens, that the judges would end up giving conditional sentences in respect of crimes that the justice minister and the people on the committee would not have expected them to do, which is exactly what happened. Some of the judges used conditional sentences in a manner that was really not intended by the act and by the committee. This upset justice ministers of the various provinces.
What has ended up happening is kind of like a pendulum. When the pendulum swings one way, namely, with the judges using conditional sentences in what I would consider an inappropriate manner, the Conservative government came in with a bill that was on the other end of the pendulum swing. These amendments have not only brought the pendulum back into the middle to permit conditional sentences in the appropriate crime situations, but also to ensure that judges do not use them for the kinds of crimes for which they were not intended, such as serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences and gang related offences.
I wonder if my hon. friend would care to comment on what I have said.
[Interjection]
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, our colleague is partly right. The problem is that when we look on a larger scale and more longitudinally, we have no evidence that judges have used conditional sentencing inappropriately. In addition, few cases of conditional sentences for organized crime offences, terrorism, homicide or equally serious offences were brought to our attention.
Moreover, for the latest years for which sentencing statistics are available, conditional sentences account for 5% of cases resulting in conviction.
Did some courts hand down rulings that were more questionable? Certainly, but the remedy for that is appeal, and the parliamentary committee has amended the bill to send a clear message.
Section 752 of the Criminal Code, in the case of personal injury offences, and section 477, in the case of criminal organization offences and terrorism, provide that conditional sentencing must not be used for such offences. We are in favour of having this clearly set down in a piece of legislation. However, the minister had proposed a list of 120 offences, and we disapproved of that approach.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague as he talked about his friendship with the justice minister. I know the member has served on the committee in years gone by and that he is a member of the committee who takes it seriously.
Some of the comments we are getting from Quebec and Montreal are from people who are very concerned about home invasion, break-ins and people coming into their homes. Seniors and others are very concerned about the increase in home invasion.
Earlier this morning in my speech, I mentioned the case of R. v. Bratzer where the offender had committed three armed robberies in a period of one week. The court heard that the individual planned the armed robberies, put on a mask, picked up the weapon of choice and carried out three planned robberies. He had a history. It also came out in the court that the individual loved and anticipated the rush that he would get from carrying out this criminal offence. Despite all the information that came out in court, the court sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence, to house arrest, to no prison term, to no incarceration and to go home to his living room for two years less a day.
Given the increase in home invasions in Montreal, why does the member not stand up and say that it is time that we deal with this to prevent this type of sentencing structure for people who are criminals and who get a rush from this type of criminal activity?
[Interjection]
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, if an individual, regardless where—in Montreal or anywhere else—broke into homes three times, it will not be hard to convince me that it is not a case for conditional sentencing.
Is my colleague asking if this was appealed, if an appeals court upheld the decision? It is easy to understand that this is not a case for conditional sentencing.
Statistics presented in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights indicate that for break and enter offences conditional sentencing is rarely used. We cannot assume that the exception is the rule. 
At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that according to the data provided to us, conditional sentencing is a marginal reality of the sentencing system. It happens in only 5% of the cases; three times out of four it is a property offence. It is not about cases where an individual commits three offences of residence theft. In such a situation conditional sentencing would not be recommended.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across made some good points in terms of the various crimes that we are dealing with. Quite clearly, we are in the twilight of a time called the war on drugs. This has created a lot of the crime that we are dealing with in Canada right now, as well as the sentencing. It is in the twilight because I think we have recognized that it does not work. In the last Parliament, we had some debate and discussion. We even brought some bills forward to look at how we could deal with this better. 
Part of getting tough on crime is taking the oxygen out of the system that criminals live on. In reality, if we want to get tough on crime we need to find ways to eliminate crime. I would like the hon. member across to comment on that.
[Interjection]
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I thought the period for questions was over, so I left the House and did not hear the beginning of my colleague's question.
I believe he was referring to the end of the war on drugs. I agree: it used to be a bigger problem than it is now. 
In general, crime rates are dropping for demographic and economic reasons. The economy is doing well, although some urban centres are more affected than others.
Statistically, the concerns we should be focusing on are economic crime and property crime. There has been a net decrease in offences against the person.
Once again, I am sorry I did not hear the beginning of the first part of the question.
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-9. 
The bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I was pleased to support the amended bill when it came before the House at report stage this past Wednesday evening. I commend the members of the justice committee for their efforts, and particularly the member for London West for her diligent work on this bill and all justice legislation that has come before this 39th Parliament.
I have taken a keen interest in law and order issues and safe communities throughout my time in elected office. Prior to becoming the member of Parliament for North Vancouver in 2004, as mayor of the district of North Vancouver, I worked closely with local police, legal and judicial officials to continually monitor crime, law and order and sentencing issues in our community.
My constituents in North Vancouver, like all Canadians, want to be safe in their homes and communities and, as elected officials, it is our duty to ensure that the laws we craft in this place achieve that goal and do not have unintended consequences because they were rushed through Parliament without proper consideration.
I support the principle of Bill C-9 as it was originally tabled by the government in May, namely, the tightening up of the use of conditional sentencing. However, the amendments made to Bill C-9 at committee were necessary and they improved the bill. They certainly do not gut the bill, as some government members and the Minister of Justice have suggested. In fact, this bill provides that a person convicted of, first, a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code; second, a terrorist offence; or, third, a criminal organization offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more, is not eligible for a conditional sentence, nor can a conditional sentence be given where a minimum sentence for the offence applies.
We have heard rumblings that the Conservatives are planning to use justice issues as a wedge issue in the next federal election, and it appears this strategy has already begun. The Conservative government has introduced 11 justice related bills in this House, knowing full well that due to the short life of minority Parliaments, some of these bills will die on the order paper. In the next election, the Conservatives will then try to convince Canadians that all other parties are soft on crime, wrongly suggesting that we delayed or blocked this legislation.
In fact, the Liberal justice plan will fast-track 6 of the 11 justice bills, but this is typical of its style of politics. The Conservatives have yet again looked south at their republican idols and pulled a page from the Bush-Rove playbook, namely, “you either agree with us, or you're with the enemy”.
Despite the recent efforts of the party opposite, this is not the United States and this strategy will not work. It is dishonest. The Liberal Party and Liberal members in this House are not soft on crime. We want effective, smart laws. Despite what the Conservatives may try to convince Canadians, they know where we stand and the Conservatives know that I stand for effective, smart law and order measures.
I understand my time is running out. I had much more to say but I will say that we are pleased, from the opposition side, to have made our offer to fast-track the bills initiated under the former Liberal government, plus two new ones, for a total of 6 of 11 bills, and to get on with making thoughtful, smart improvements to Canada's Criminal Code, not for political gain but for the safety and well-being of Canadians.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:30 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 1, I must interrupt the debate and put the motion to a vote.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  yea.
[Interjection]
Hon. Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we are under a House order that was negotiated between the parties that after two hours of debate, the question would be deemed put and passed on division. Could you just check that, please?
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I thank the hon. the government House leader for his advice but it is very important that the Chair have clear instructions from the House as to what is the intention of the House. I will look for that order now.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In response to the point of order raised by the government House leader, I am reading from page 609 of the Journals of November 1. It states:
 --and that the time allotted for the report stage of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), shall not exceed one hour and the time allotted for the third reading of Bill C-9 shall not exceed two hours. 
That is the extent of the order.
If the House wishes to pass it on division, the Chair will agree with that, but the Chair does need a clear instruction from the House.
 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried. 
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If we have concluded that matter, I wonder if there would be consent in the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m., so that we could begin private member's business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper. 

Private Members' Business
Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-222, An Act to recognize and protect Canada’s hunting, trapping and fishing heritage, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-222, an act to recognize and protect Canada’s hunting, trapping and fishing heritage which was brought forward by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. He has put forward this bill for reasons aimed at ensuring Canadians are able to continue to hunt, fish and trap on federal and public land and waters.
Inland fishing is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. Fishing in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon is exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Hunting and trapping are exclusively under provincial-territorial jurisdictions.
The bill is essentially flawed in that it speaks to rights held under provincial jurisdictions. I recognize that this is a private member's bill and would not necessarily hold any party to its passage. It is somewhat meaningless in this regard because it speaks to rights that are held under provincial jurisdictions, which my party wants to protect. We certainly want to protect provincial jurisdiction over these rights in my jurisdiction.
In the case of my riding, most of the hunting, fishing and trapping rights are held under comprehensive land claims in areas where land claims have been settled with the various land claims bodies and are represented in some cases by councils, along with the territorial government. They determine the disposition of wildlife in those areas.
Hunting, trapping and fishing in the Northwest Territories is significant in every respect. As a sustenance part of our economy, it is very important. All the small communities throughout my riding rely heavily on the ability of their members to hunt for food to keep their cost of living in line, to preserve their culture, and to really respect the way the land should be protected through use. That is an important point. 
Hunting, trapping and fishing are very important to people in my riding. They are not something with which we trifle. They are not something we use as political tools between one group or the other. They are essential for the conduct of ordinary life.
Bill C-222 would create a right for non-aboriginal people to fish, hunt and trap, and place restrictions on legislation designed to manage fish and animal populations. Right now only aboriginal people in some areas have the unfettered right to hunt, fish and trap, and those rights came through constitutional protection. These rights came from their history and their heritage over thousands of years. 
They are a recognition of the essential part of their life which has gone on for many generations and has produced a consistent result on the land, a result that, in many measures, was in harmony. To say that man can ever remain in perfect harmony with his environment is something that we all have to consider every day.
Right now, our relationship with the environment is changing quickly. We see this all over the country. Even the aboriginal people who run the hunting and fishing councils in the Northwest Territories recognize the extreme problems that our environment is facing in terms of how the changes in climate are affecting our wildlife.
Interestingly enough, in the last six months, the Tuktoyaktuk game council passed a motion to restrict the harvesting of caribou on its land. This is a major step. This community, which so heavily relies on harvesting caribou, has said to its people, “Look, we have to take steps here. Our herds are in precipitous decline. We can't continue to hunt at this point in time in the fashion we have in the past”.
The aboriginal people are taking hold of the issues that surround them in their traditional rights and in the way that they deal with the land and the environment. I think that speaks well to their governance. Their governance comes through constitutional rights and through recognition of their inherent rights and from that, through their comprehensive claims their ability to govern themselves.
These things are ongoing as we speak. This is part of how the harvesting of wildlife is evolving in my jurisdiction. 
Our territorial government is also concerned about the complete caribou herd across the north. The decline that we see in one area is mirrored in almost every other area. The caribou are a great indicator species of change because the energetics of their food cycle and their breeding cycle are so linked to vegetation, climate, and their ability to survive in very inhospitable terrain.
I think quite clearly that the intent of the bill to preserve hunting and trapping rights for other Canadians needs very careful examination right now. 
 I would be the last one to in any way impinge on people's ability to hunt, fish and trap but, at the same time, there are so many issues surrounding our environment, the animals on our land, and our ability to preserve those species for the future. Putting more legal words in the way our governments work across the country is very difficult at this time.
I sense the member's emotional response to this bill and as a person who lives in rural areas, I certainly recognize that.
 In some rural areas, of course, climate change has increased the availability of animal populations and hunting in some areas could probably increase. We could hand out more permits and we could do more hunting. This would be a successful effort in many areas.
Once again, it comes down to regulation and to understanding of the animal populations of the area, not going back to any particular right or privilege that one group or the other may have on the land. That is my point on this bill. I wish the hon. member well with his intentions. I will leave it at that.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today to support the goals of my Manitoba colleague in Bill C-222, An Act to recognize and protect Canada’s hunting, trapping and fishing heritage.
I was the first MP to jointly second the bill in April of this year. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, our neighbour to the east of my constituency of Yorkton—Melville, is to be commended for his efforts to preserve the practices of hunting, fishing and trapping, practices so central to our history and tradition that they form an integral part of the fabric of our culture.
There is a growing list of 358 municipalities from every province in Canada that support this groundbreaking piece of legislation. I am eager to engage the efforts of the 77 MPs and senators who comprise the newly formed outdoors caucus, representing all four political parties in this House and all 10 provinces and two territories, and to discuss how we can best accomplish the goals described in Bill C-222.
We should promote our hunting, fishing and trapping heritage activities, because the men and women who use the outdoors are most interested in preserving the environment. Many groups are seeking to shut down these three traditional heritage activities. Acknowledging and using the considerable resources of the federal government to promote our traditional heritage activities would go a long way to protecting them.
There is no question that hunting, fishing and trapping are heritage activities. Where would Canada be without them? All of the exploration and settlement of Canada took place mainly because of these three heritage activities, but where do we find recognition of this fact in the old government's websites? Nowhere. 
Hunting, fishing and trapping do not appear in the 221 items listed in the site map of the Canadian heritage department's website. Hunting, fishing and trapping are not a part of Canada Tourism's website. Hunting and trapping are also missing from the Canadian Tourism Commission's website and just 12 fishing lodges are listed. The section on wildlife does not even mention hunting or trapping. 
Nor is there any mention made in any of these three websites with respect to gun shows, shooting competitions, skeet shoots, historic re-enactments, gun clubs, fish and game organizations, wildlife federations or trappers associations, all essential elements of preserving the heritage activities of hunting, fishing and trapping. These three activities are essential to wildlife management and habitat conservation and rehabilitation.
This certainly indicates a lack of recognition by the old federal government, which Bill C-222 proposes to address. This lack of recognition begs the question: how can we protect these heritage activities if we fail to acknowledge that they even exist? In failing to acknowledge these heritage activities, the old government also failed to acknowledge the huge contribution that hunting, fishing and trapping make to Canada's economy and jobs.
Sustenance hunting is an important part of the lives and survival of thousands of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, but sport hunting is where the real money is at. In August of this year, the Library of Parliament completed a report entitled “The Benefits of Firearms Ownership--Hunting and Wildlife Management”. In this paper, Library of Parliament economist Tony Jackson wrote:
 The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians...is made up of agencies responsible for the environment and tourism. 
 In 1996, 10.3 million Canadians aged 15 and over took part in outdoor activities, with 4.2 million fishing and 1.2 million hunting. According to the survey, men and women enjoy the Canadian outdoors equally; however, 85% of recreational hunters are men, as are 66% of recreational fishers. 
 Respondents were asked to report their detailed expenditures for mainly nature-related activities over a 12-month period. In just under half of the reported trips, the participants undertook more than one activity. The survey estimated that over $7.2 billion was spent on outdoor activities in natural areas in 1996, including $1.3 billion on wildlife viewing as both a primary and secondary activity. Canadians spent $1.9 billion on fishing and $823.8 million on recreational hunting. 
One of the first tasks of the new outdoors caucus that I co-chair with the hon. member for Yukon will be to ask the environment minister to renew this survey.
In addition to this direct economic impact, in the last 15 years hunters have devoted 14 million volunteer hours or 1,600 years of personal work to habitat conservation. Hunter licence fees brought in almost $600 million to government treasuries, coupled with approximately $600 million spent on equipment, travel, lodging, guides, tourism and other expenditures.
Despite the fees and paperwork created by the useless gun registry each year, approximately 70,000 foreign visitors, mainly Americans, come into Canada with their guns to hunt and sport shoot each year.
 The Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association reports that anglers spend a total of $6.7 billion annually to support their outdoor passion. For example, in the year 2000, recreational fishermen spent $970 million on boat equipment alone. According to the most recent industry reports, in Canada eight million people of all ages fish. Let me repeat that: eight million people.
In 2000 Canadian anglers devoted over one million volunteer days to cleaning up waterways and fish habitat. In 1999 Canadians spent $1.3 billion on overnight trips for hunting and angling. That is almost three times the revenue obtained from all the performing arts in Canada, including government grants and private donations.
The Fur Institute of Canada states:
 The Fur Trade in Canada contributes approximately $800 million to the Canadian GDP... The Fur Trade in Canada is comprised of approximately 60,000 trappers (includes 25,000 Aboriginal)...The first international marketing for Canada's premier [fur] resource began in 1670 with the establishment of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
That is what I call a heritage activity.
Hunting, fishing and trapping are indeed important parts of our heritage. They deserve recognition and protection in keeping with their place in history and to the extent possible, given the respective constitutional jurisdictions of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. That is why I commend my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, for his years of work in this important heritage preservation and conservation initiative. I had a motion that I was going to put forward to the committee on the subject of the bill so that the report could be issued by the committee, but I cannot get the consent of the mover and some political parties so there is no sense trying to move forward on that. 
In summary, we need to recognize our heritage activities. The traditional aspect is important to the development of this country. I would urge all members to support this and carry it forward. One of the key things that we have to remember is that these are the people who are most concerned about preserving and enhancing our environment and making sure that we use our outdoors respectfully.
 I am thankful to have been allowed to address this issue. I hope all members will take to heart the remarks that I have made.
Tina Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the second reading debate of the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette's Bill C-222, the heritage, hunting, trapping and fishing protection act.
The bill hopes to recognize that recreational hunting and fishing have played a significant role in shaping Canada's social, cultural and economic heritage and that recreational hunters, trappers and anglers have made important contributions to the understanding of conservation, restoration and management of fish and wildlife resources.
As a member of Parliament who represents a large rural constituency in northern Manitoba, I can assure my hon. colleagues of the importance of hunting, trapping and fishing within our country. These activities are deeply ingrained in our history, heritage and culture. They represent a common economic activity and a pastime during all seasons of the year, and are an economic contributor in my riding.
However, due to the importance with which we as legislators must regard legislation, it is important that we understand whether it is suitable legislation. Referring to hunting and fishing in the context of heritage, it is important that we understand the intent of the bill and the intent and usefulness of the bill are unclear.
The mandate of Canadian Heritage states that it is responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians. In the context of Canadian heritage and the department's responsibility to set policies and programs in this area, we have to look at the current jurisdictional issues and structures on fishing and hunting.
I would contend that mainly the conflicts would arise with provinces, but there would also be potential conflicts with aboriginal and treaty rights with first nations, Métis and Inuit throughout Canada. For instance, in my home province of Manitoba there is existing legislation in the area of conservation, hunting and fishing. These include legislation such as the conservation agreements act, the endangered species act, the polar bear protection act and the wildlife act. Given this fact, we must be careful not to intrude on the province's jurisdiction. I know as well that provinces across the country have legislation similar to Manitoba's legislation. 
In addition, the proponent of the bill is well-informed in aboriginal and treaty rights which are entrenched in section 35 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1982. Where there has been jurisdictional debate on section 35 for the Métis nation, it was clearly stated in the Supreme Court of Canada's Powley decision in September 2003, a unanimous decision, that the Métis right to hunt is protected by section 35 of the Constitution.
There is uncertainty on the implications of the bill and what it would create for aboriginal peoples. Does the bill potentially challenge treaty and aboriginal rights? In regard to Canadian Heritage's responsibility for policy and programs on this matter, what would it mean? These are merely some of the questions I am sure members and Canadians would ask.
Despite the general spirit and intent of the bill to embrace this important part of our collective heritage, the uncertainties of jurisdictional conflicts draw concern for me. To this end, I understand that since the initial tabling of Bill C-222, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette realized some of the potential infringements that this bill may have done and he has addressed the matter. In fact, he made a recommendation to the committee that clauses 1, 2 and 3 be replaced with one single clause stating, “That a person has a right to hunt, fish and trap in accordance with the law”.
I join many of my colleagues when I applaud the spirit of the bill, but I would argue that this issue is dealt with through our provincial laws and through section 35 of the Constitution, and as a federal heritage matter, it is not clear in its intent and implication. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, listening to the discussion in the chamber and to all the members of Parliament, I think most of us are in favour of the intent of the bill. The difficulty is to support the purpose of the bill.
I want to thank the member from Dauphin for bringing the bill forward. The hon. member on the Liberal side is missing an important point. Our hunting, fishing and trapping heritage is threatened. Even that protected under the Constitution for aboriginals it is threatened. It is threatened by a society that no longer involves itself in hunting, fishing and trapping.
Quite frankly, not only the aboriginal community needs protection of these rights, the entire community needs protection of these rights. If we do not stand together, we could fall separately.
I really think this is something that is not being considered. I thank the hon. member for bringing forward the bill. It is an important bill. Because of the jurisdictional problems, I will be unable to support the bill, but that is not the point.
The point is this should have been brought forward a long time ago. It is something that we should have a serious conversation about and discussion among the provinces, the federal government, the territories and all the various hunting, fishing and trapping groups in our country. We should move forward in a positive way. If we do not, this part of our heritage will be left behind.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of our Outdoors Caucus, made up of members of the House from all parties, that has the mission to entrench in law fishing, hunting, trapping and shooting sports as acceptable, traditional, environmentally sustainable outdoor heritage activities with a safety credo and a conservation ethic as our highest priority.
We have 77 members in the caucus, 67 MPs and 10 senators. There are 51 Conservatives, 17 Liberals, 4 NDP members and 5 Bloc members. There are 27 from Ontario, 8 from Quebec, 10 from Alberta, 7 from Saskatchewan, 9 from B.C., 3 from Nova Scotia, 3 from New Brunswick, 5 from Manitoba, 1 from P.E.I., 2 from Newfoundland, 1 from Yukon and 1 from Nunavut. 
I want to read an excerpt from a letter to the Outdoors Caucus from Mr. Phil Morlock, chair of the legislative committee of the Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association. He said:
 The future health of our industry and related economies is directly tied to the conservation and sustainable wise use of our natural resources, reflecting the fact that the people who fish and hunt donate more volunteer hours and money to the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat than all other groups combined. The very origins of parks, protected areas and natural resource management science can be traced to the efforts of people who came to value wild places through fishing and hunting. These heritage activities are increasingly relevant in today's urban society. People fish and hunt for very profound and personal reasons that reach back across [years and years and years] of human history and continue to bring us together in the outdoors. We come from all ethnic and economic backgrounds, all political views, male and female, young and old. Our outdoor heritage and traditions are not political and should never be politicized. 
I encourage all members to ensure that this indeed happens.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, just as we wind up the debate on Bill C-222, I too want to take a moment to recognize and pay tribute to my colleague from Dauphin for his commitment to the issue and for doing his bit, as a member of Parliament, to participate in private members' business and to advance the issues about which he cares. I am not sure if the general public realizes that this is one of the forums we can use as members of Parliament to advance the issues on behalf of constituents or for special causes.
Speaking from experience, I lived in the Yukon Territory for many years and enjoyed hunting. We spoke about caribou earlier. I lived in Dawson City, and the largest caribou herd in the world would walk by once a year. It made the harvesting and hunting of caribou quite easy when they showed up on our doorstep that way. It is part of the tradition, culture and heritage in that part of the world. We should acknowledge it in the same way we acknowledge our cultural diversity and in the same way we recognize biological and scientific diversity as part of the rich, cultural fabric that makes us Canadian. 
As far as the Canadian identity goes, observers from other parts of the world identify Canada with our natural cultural heritage associated with the abundance of game, the way we have managed the harvest of that game and the recreation aspect as well of hunting, fishing and trapping.
We know trapping has had a bad rap in recent years. People throw blood on us if we wear a fur coat. In actual fact people who are more knowledgeable--
Gerald Keddy:  They may try.
Pat Martin:  As my colleague from South Shore says, they may try. They may only do it once, if it is to him. As members of Parliament, we should acknowledge that trapping is part of the Canadian culture and heritage too and lends itself to the management of our wildlife resources in an area where there is shrinking habitat.
I support my colleague's bill and I will vote in favour of the bill. I acknowledge and recognize the contribution he has made to the debate today by bringing it forward.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The sponsor of Bill C-222, hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, will have five minutes for his rebuttal. 
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members who have taken the time and interest to speak on behalf of Bill C-222.
What exactly is Bill C-222? As has been mentioned today, it is about the recognition and the protection of Canada's history and our culture, which is made up of hunting, fishing and trapping. More important, it is not about the past or present, it is actually about the future because it is the future we need to think about. 
Two concerns were raised, in both the first hour and the second hour of debate, that concerned me. One concern was about the infringement on aboriginal rights. I would just like to say that this would have absolutely no infringement on aboriginal rights because their right to hunt and fish has been written into our Constitution. If anything, the right to hunt and fish by a non-aboriginal community will augment and strengthen the aboriginals' right to hunt and fish.
There is no motive to infringe upon provincial rights, even though we know that the management of wildlife resources is a provincial jurisdiction. We can correct that simply by amending the preamble to ensure it is very clear that these are provincial rights.
I will repeat again, as the member from Churchill stated in the first hour, we will delete all three clauses from the bill so that we have a one clause bill which basically says that all citizens in Canada have a right to hunt, fish and trap in accordance with the law, which means all laws, municipal, provincial and federal.
Unfortunately, there is no protection for these activities as they exist today. The only protection for hunting, fishing and trapping is accorded to the aboriginal community. For instance, if down the road this House passes a cruelty to animal act which says that hunting and fishing is cruel to animals, what would happen? That would be the end of hunting, fishing and trapping.
We understand how important it has been in the past, why we need to continue exercising these heritage activities in the future and how it affects our economy. It is worth at least $10 billion a year. I do not know of anyone in this House who does not know people who take part in hunting, fishing or trapping. Most of us do it on a personal level, as do our families and friends. That is the intent of the bill and I applaud members of this House for recognizing that. 
I will close by saying that no bill that comes to this House is perfect on its first try. I know because I have been here almost 10 years. I have babysat many bills through this House. We have a committee structure and we move a bill on to committee. The committee does its work and then the bill comes back to this House.
This bill is long overdue. I thank all members and urge them to support this bill in the best interests of our future children and grandchildren.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 8, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:55 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:55 p.m.)